MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6926264121 · doi:10.22034/ijism.2022.1977763.0

Machine Learning in Safety and Health Research: A Scientometric Analysis

2023· article· en· W6926264121 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
Topictransportation and logistics systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScopusThrivingPublishingCuriosityWeb of scienceField (mathematics)Mental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Safety and health are intricately interwoven and have become indispensable to the thriving business world and anthropology. It is concerned with ensuring employees’ physical, emotional, and mental well-being. Based on the Scopus and Web of Science databases, the current study intends to analyse the global research output on machine learning in safety and health. This study utilized ScientoPy and VOSviewer to delve into the annual growth, patterns of research communication on source titles, international collaboration among countries, and authors’ keyword analysis. This study found that the Web of Science database tracks the evolution of publications throughout time. PLoS One has surpassed all other source titles in terms of publishing activity. Also, this study indicated that US researchers are constantly working on machine learning in safety and health research and have developed significant collaborations with China and Australia. Between 2020 and 2021, the University of Toronto published 86% of all papers, outpacing other institutions. The keywords “machine learning”, “artificial intelligence”, “electronic health records”, “deep learning”, and “mental health” were the most popular and trending keywords in 2020 and 2021, and “artificial intelligence” appeared in most publications among others. Future researchers should conduct scoping or systematic literature reviews to elucidate the relationships between these terms. This study may entice the curiosity of practitioners and researchers to advance new knowledge in this field by being devoted to cutting-edge research in the contemporary philosophy of science, cognitive, and cultural anthropology on machine learning in safety and health research. In conclusion, this scientometric analysis demonstrates that machine learning in safety and health is a study domain that requires further refinement in future research, as this technology has the potential to significantly improve workplace safety and health through targeted applications with clear benefits.

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.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0100.037
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.716
GPT teacher head0.681
Teacher spread0.035 · 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