Drawing the Scientific Collaboration Map of Intellectual Capital Field in the Web of Science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and aim: Drawing the scientific collaboration maps is very important for analyzing and identifying scientific collaborations in different subject areas of science. Therefore, the aim of this was to scientometrically analyze intellectual capital articles and draw the scientific collaboration map in this area. Materials and methods: This applied study was performed using a scientometric approach. The statistical population of the study included 2077 intellectual capital articles indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) citation database during 1985-2018. In addition, the VOSviewer software was used to draw the scientific collaboration maps of authors, countries, journals, organizations and keyword co-occurrences. Findings: The findings showed that the publication and citation trend of the intellectual capital articles in the WoS was ascending; Dumay with 30 citations and 620 documents and Bontis with14 documents and 463 citations. The most cited authors, countries, universities, journals and keywords in this field were in the following order: Countries including United States (361 documents and 5745 citations), the United Kingdom (199 documents and 3492 citations) and Spain (171 documents and 1591 citations); Universities like Macquarie University of Australia (32 documents and 467 citations) and McMaster University of Canada (26 documents and 697 citations); Journals such as Intellectual Capital (127 documents), Knowledge Management Research and Practice (53 documents), Management Decision (881 citations) and Expert Systems with Applications (786 citations); and keywords of Capital (901 documents and 11229 citations), Intellectual (817 documents and 9041citations) and Knowledge (267 documents and 2763 citations). Moreover, the keyword co-occurrence map was more coherent than the co-citation and co-authorship map of the authors, universities, countries and journals. Conclusion: Citation and scientific collaboration in the intellectual capital articles despite the upward trend is weak; therefore, policymakers in this field should make the necessary plans to improve and strengthen scientific collaboration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.053 | 0.050 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".