MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6926321043 · doi:10.22034/ijism.2022.1977740.0

Bibliometric analysis of global scientific research on Public Administration: 1923-2020

2023· article· en· W6926321043 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
FieldComputer Science
TopicScientific Research and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField (mathematics)BibliometricsWeb of scienceAdministration (probate law)InstitutionState (computer science)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to perform a bibliometric analysis of documents published in the field of Public Administration during the years 1923-2020. In this bibliometric study, all Web of Science (WOS) databases were used to retrieve the publications in this field. Using a proper search strategy, 93093 records were retrieved in the WOS database from 1923 to 2020. Excel and VOSviewer software were used for bibliometric analysis and visualization of documents. The findings show that 64.31% of documents (59860 documents) were articles; most documents were published in the Public Administration Review-Journal (n= 9011). The United States (with 31930 documents), ENGLAND (with 14636 documents), and Canada (with 7104 documents) published the most documents in this field, respectively. The University of Birmingham was the most productive institution (n=1,441, 1.54 %). Meier, K. J. S was the most productive author (n= 119, 0.12%). Keywords with the highest frequency were "management", "governance", "government", "policy", "performance", "politics", "state", and "organizations". The most co-occurrence keywords existed within three clusters, the first including keywords related to policy issues, the second including author keywords about management and performance, and the third including keywords related to state and local management. The global trend of publications in the field of Public Administration has been upward, from 54 documents in 1923 to 4561 documents in 2020. This study not only presents a full view of global Public Administration research but also can contribute to future research in this field and bibliometric studies.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics, Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.509
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.1710.680
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0150.005
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.549
GPT teacher head0.639
Teacher spread0.090 · 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