MAPPING THE IMPACT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ON MANAGEMENT AND COMMERCE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in commerce and management, focusing on scholarly publications indexed in the Web of Science (WOS) database between 2019 and 2023. AI has emerged as a pivotal research area; however, few studies have addressed its bibliometric dimensions. This study aims to bridge this gap by evaluating the academic landscape and comparing AI research to assess its impact on decision-making in business management. Data for the analysis was collected from WOS, and performance analysis and science mapping were conducted using R-Studio and MS Excel. The findings highlight AI’s growing role in enhancing business functions, including decision-making, process optimization, and innovation. Key themes include "performance" (9%), "innovation" (6%), and "integration" (3%), reflecting AI’s potential in improving organizational efficiency and competitiveness. The research reveals an annual growth rate of 9.05%, with a peak in 2022, and underscores the significant influence of international collaboration, particularly in smaller countries such as Canada and Australia. The study identifies the USA and China as leading contributors and highlights the concentrated influence of a few prolific scholars and journals. The analysis concludes that AI is an indispensable tool for enhancing agility and adaptability in business management, positioning it as a strategic asset in a rapidly evolving global marketplace.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".