MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117996500 · doi:10.1145/3765766.3765775

A Bibliometric Analysis of Human-Robot Interaction Behaviour Research

2025· article· W7117996500 on OpenAlexaff
Yichen Lian, Zachary McKendrick, Ori Fartook, Ehud Sharlin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicSocial Robot Interaction and HRI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobotRoboticsField (mathematics)Task (project management)Web of scienceTask analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) research, "behaviour" refers to one way robots express themselves and convey information. With the increased interest in robots in industrial, research, and domestic settings, understanding how robots behave and are perceived has become a top priority in the HRI community. Using the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC), we conducted a bibliometric analysis on 2,464 articles and proceedings about robot behaviour published from 2005 to 2025. Our analysis reveals a rapid development with a clear shift in HRI research on robot behaviour, moving from early theoretical and conceptual foundations toward more application-oriented studies, such as task analysis and navigation. Behavioural science and collaborative robotics have emerged as central research themes within this evolving landscape, with current research no longer limited to interaction methodologies but increasingly integrating other learning-based approaches to enhance user interaction experiences. Our analysis highlights that the field is characterized by strong cross-regional and institutional collaboration, with the United States serving as an international research center, and suggests future studies may include exploration into the interplay between behavioural science, human-robot collaboration, artificial intelligence, and robotic behaviours.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.420
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.5510.660
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0880.001

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 head0.300
GPT teacher head0.605
Teacher spread0.304 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSocial Robot Interaction and HRIFrench-language works237,207