MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417030792 · doi:10.1080/23311932.2025.2596401

Food technology innovations rooted in local wisdom: a bibliometric analysis of global research trends and future directions

2025· article· en· W4417030792 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yevita Nurti, Nika Saputra

Bibliographic record

VenueCogent Food & Agriculture · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicIndigenous Knowledge Systems and Agriculture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommercializationBibliometricsScopusChinaThe InternetCorporate governanceAgricultureContent analysisFood processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Local wisdom-informed food technology innovation is increasingly attracting global scholarly attention as a viable strategy for addressing food security, sustainability, and public health challenges. This investigation examines prevailing research trajectories pertinent to applying traditional knowledge in food innovation through a bibliometric analysis framework. Following PRISMA 2020, we identified, screened, and included records under predefined criteria to ensure rigor and transparency. A total of 158 scholarly documents (coverage: 2014–2024; search conducted through 31 December 2024) were scrutinized utilizing the Scopus database. The articles selected pertained to local wisdom-informed food technology innovation and were published in English in peer-reviewed academic journals. The bibliometric analysis employed VOSviewer and Bibliometrix (R-package) to delineate publication trends, keyword prevalence, and international collaborative efforts within this domain. The analysis revealed a notable escalation in publication volume, with the United States, Italy, and India leading the output (19 documents each), followed by Indonesia (15), Canada (14), and China (13). Predominant themes encompassed “traditional knowledge,” “ethnobotany,” “food security,” and “nutrition.” Beyond mapping, we articulate a practical translation perspective for local-wisdom technologies, emphasizing documentation, standardization, validation, and scale-up, to bridge discovery and application. However, a discernible research gap persists concerning the integration and validation of advanced technologies (e.g. artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, nanotechnology) and the commercialization and equitable governance (e.g. benefit-sharing, traceability) of local food innovations. Findings should be interpreted in light of Scopus-only and English-language inclusion, which may under-represent non-English local scholarship.

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

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.151
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.151
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.1900.299
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0140.010
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCogent Food & AgricultureSame topicIndigenous Knowledge Systems and AgricultureFrench-language works237,207