A comprehensive review and bibliometric analysis on collaborative robotics for industry: safety emerging as a core focus
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research organizations and academics often seek to map the development of scientific fields, identify research gaps, and guide the direction of future research. In cobot-related research, the scientific literature consulted does not propose any comprehensive research agenda. Moreover, cobots, industrial robots inherently designed to collaborate with humans, bring with them emerging issues. To solve them, interdisciplinary research is often essential (e.g., combination of engineering, ergonomics and biomechanics expertise to handle safety challenges). This paper proposes an exhaustive study that employs a scoping review and bibliometric analysis to provide a structured macro perspective on the developments, key topics, and trends in cobot research for industry. A total of 2,195 scientific publications were gained from the Web of Science database, and a thorough selection process narrowed them down to 532 papers for comprehensive analysis. Descriptive statistics were employed to analyze bibliometric measures, highlighting publication trends, leading journals, the most productive institutions, engaged countries, influential authors, and prominent research topics. Co-authorship and bibliographic couplings were also examined. Through a co-occurrence analysis of terms, the content and research objectives of the papers were systematically reviewed and lead to a univocal categorization framework. That categorization can support organizations or researchers in different cobotics (collaborative robotics) fields by understanding research developments and trends, identifying collaboration opportunities, selecting suitable publication venues, advancing the theoretical and experimental understanding of automatic collaborative systems, and identifying research directions and predicting the evolution of publication quantity in cobotics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.063 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it