MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414845510 · doi:10.24106/kefdergi.1795795

Investigation of Studies on Micro-credentials by Bibliometric Analysis Method

2025· article· en· W4414845510 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Akça Okan Yüksel

Bibliographic record

VenueKastamonu Eğitim Dergisi · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHigher educationWeb of scienceBibliometricsQuality (philosophy)Lifelong learningTrend analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: The aim of the study is to reveal the trend of micro-credential studies conducted at the higher education level and to present a general framework on micro-credentials. Design/Methodology/Approach: Bibliometric analysis method was used in the study. Web of Science (WOS) database, which is a widely used and reliable data source in literature searches, was preferred to search the articles. The search criteria were limited to articles with title, abstract and keywords. For this purpose, the Web of Science database was searched with the keywords 'micro-credentials' and 'micro credential'. 85 papers are identified and included in the analysis. Findings: The keyword analysis revealed that micro-credentials have strong links with higher education, digital badges, employment and lifelong learning. At the same time, the most cited countries and researchers were mostly from countries such as the USA, Australia and Canada. The co-occurrence analysis of keywords unveils five clusters representing trends in micro-competencies and employability, learning and skills, distance learning, digitalization and technology, quality assurance and sustainability. Highlights: In conclusion, micro-credentials are becoming increasingly important as a flexible and innovative learning model that responds to the needs of modern education systems and labor markets.

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
Observationallow
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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.468
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.7970.945
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.502
GPT teacher head0.606
Teacher spread0.104 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKastamonu Eğitim DergisiSame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207