MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7118004787 · doi:10.2478/adms-2025-0019

Tungsten Inert Gas Welding Research Trends: A 60-Year Bibliometric Analysis Using Vosviewer and Biblioshiny

2025· article· en· W7118004787 on OpenAlexaff
Dariusz Fydrych, Aleksandra Świerczyńska, Balázs Varbai, Kamil Wilk, Wojciech Suder, Gürel Çam, Chandan Pandey

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Materials Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWelding Techniques and Residual Stresses
Canadian institutions123 Certification (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGas tungsten arc weldingWeldingProcess (computing)WeldabilityBibliometricsGas metal arc welding

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Tungsten Inert Gas (TIG) welding constitutes a key process in the fabrication of welded structures, with widespread application across various sectors of modern industry. It continues to be the subject of extensive research due to its technical advantages and versatility. However, despite its industrial importance, TIG welding has not yet been the focus of a comprehensive bibliographic review. Therefore, the objective of this study is not only to present the current state of knowledge but also to identify key process directions and emerging research trends through a bibliometric analysis of 8,789 publications indexed in Web of Science. The analyses were performed mainly in VOSviewer 1.6.20 and Biblioshiny tools, determining the networks of connections between bibliometric entities: keywords, journals, authors, countries, and funding agencies. The analysis results were used to illustrate the dynamics of research topics over a 60-year publication history on the TIG process. Current research trends include, among others, the advancement of TIG welding variants to improve process efficiency, the application of artificial intelligence, the application of optimization methods, and deep learning. The most urgent research needs involve determining the weldability of special metals, assessing the environmental degradation of TIG-welded joints, and applying data mining techniques for the optimization of the TIG process. The study may serve as an objective, comprehensive, and author-unbiased complement to traditional systematic review articles on TIG welding and related processes.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.201
Threshold uncertainty score0.861

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.1480.349
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Materials ScienceSame topicWelding Techniques and Residual StressesFrench-language works237,207