MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414249228 · doi:10.5539/hes.v15n4p203

Research Analysis and Trend Development of Grit Among College Students: A Bibliometric Study Using CiteSpace

2025· article· en· W4414249228 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lihua Jin

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrit, Self-Efficacy, and Motivation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGritField (mathematics)Psychological resilienceBibliometricsRealmTrend analysisWeb of scienceCitation analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research examined the concept of grit and its influence on college students' academic and personal success. Using bibliometric analysis and visualization tools, such as CiteSpace, this study delineates the developmental trajectory of research on grit from 2007 to 2023, drawing upon a dataset of 378 articles from the Web of Science database. The analysis elucidates principal research themes, such as the validation of the grit scale, its predictive efficacy concerning academic achievement, and its function in enhancing resilience and career adaptability. The study delineates emerging frontiers and identifies research gaps within the field through an analysis of annual publication trends, institutional contributions, and keyword co-occurrence patterns. The findings underscore the increasing scholarly attention toward grit as a significant psychological resource, particularly within the realm of higher education. They offer valuable insights for future research endeavors focused on advancing the understanding and cultivation of grit among students. The study underscores the necessity for cross-cultural and interdisciplinary methodologies to further investigate the dynamic nature of grit and its applicability across diverse educational and professional contexts.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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 armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0330.077
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.187
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.344 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Education StudiesSame topicGrit, Self-Efficacy, and MotivationCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207