A Bibliometric Analysis of Peer-Reviewed Journal Publications by British Occupational Therapy Authors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A bibliometric analysis was completed of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015 written by British occupational therapy authors that was indexed in the Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-Expanded) or Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) databases.\nMethods: “Occupational therapy” and “occupational therapist” were used as keywords to search journal articles’ publication title, abstract, author details, keywords, and KeyWords Plus. One of the authors had to be identified as a qualified occupational therapist with a British affiliation.\nResults: From 1991 to 2015, 680 journal articles were published by British occupational therapy authors. The top three journals in which authors published were the British Journal of Occupational Therapy, Clinical Rehabilitation, and Disability and Rehabilitation. The five institutions that generated the largest number of occupational therapy articles were the University of Nottingham, Brunel University London, University of Southampton, Queen Margaret University, and the University of East Anglia. British authors often collaborated in the writing of manuscripts with other authors from Australia, the United States, Canada, and Sweden.\nConclusion: The quantity of occupational therapy peer-reviewed literature written by British authors has increased over the last 2 decades. British authors have made and continue to make noteworthy contributions to the profession’s body of refereed knowledge at the national and international levels.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.113 | 0.292 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".