MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7033735709

Robotic process automation: A systematic literature review

2023· dissertation· en· W7033735709 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueRepositório do ISCTE-IUL · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicResearch in Cotton Cultivation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Scope (computer science)Systematic reviewField (mathematics)AnalyticsBig dataAutomationTransformative learning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this dissertation work, an extensive analysis of the research scenario in Robotic Process Automation (RPA) applied in the business scope is conducted. The study aims to detect primary themes, emerging research trends, influential authors, and prominent journals in the field of RPA. For this purpose, the VOSviewer software was used to perform a bibliometric analysis of a set of 118 articles extracted from selected databases. This analysis encompassed multiple data evaluations, including co-authorship analysis, citation analysis, bibliographic coupling analysis, and co-occurrence analysis. As a result, it was found that countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Canada, and Australia have made significant contributions in the field of RPA. Furthermore, the analysis of the of the main most cited articles highlighted the transformative role of RPA in process optimization, improving efficiency, and promoting digital transformation. The fusion of RPA with customer-oriented strategies, digital technologies such as Big Data Analytics (BDA), and emerging leadership practices were identified as key elements in delivering personalized services, enhancing customer experience, and fostering organizational success. With this work, a deeper understanding of the RPA research landscape is achieved, providing insights for future research and policy formulation, to support researchers and professionals working in this rapidly evolving field.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.436
Threshold uncertainty score0.787

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venueRepositório do ISCTE-IULSame topicResearch in Cotton CultivationFrench-language works237,207