MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6998977819

A Bibliometric analysis of single mothers

2023· article· en· W6998977819 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueHRB National Drugs Library (Health Research Board) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Dynamics and Relationships
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIslamic Azad University
KeywordsSingle mothersBibliometricsRanking (information retrieval)Web of scienceSingle parentResearch methodologySingle-subject designSingle point
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, there has been an increasing amount of research on single mothers internationally. This article analyzes 1543 research papers on single mothers from Web of Science database using CiteSpace literature analysis software. The study found that research on single mothers covers 79 countries globally, forming a close and comprehensive cooperative network between them. The North American region, including the United States and Canada, is a core research force in the field of single mothers. The top 15 research institutions produced more than 30 papers each, with the University of California System ranking first with a total of 72 papers. The journal with the most publications was the Journal of Marriage and Family, with a total of 44 papers. There were 8 authors who published more than 10 papers, with Herbst CM having the most with 16 papers. The frequency of citations for research on single mothers has shown a significant increasing trend in recent years, with a total of 36,624 citations, an average of 23.74 citations per paper, and an h-index of 83. Through the analysis of clustering networks and high-frequency keywords, the research hotspot on single mothers mainly focuses on four aspects: the psychological health of single mothers, the economic and employment status of single mothers, the children of single mothers, and the social support of single mothers.

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
Not applicablelow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.1420.195
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.218
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.233 · 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.

Bibliometrics

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Other design
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHRB National Drugs Library (Health Research Board)Same topicFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207