ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2024
Analysis of social metrics on scientific production in the field of emotion-aware education through artificial intelligence.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research in the field of Artificial Intelligence applied to emotions in the educational context has experienced significant growth in recent years. However, despite the field's profound implications for the educational community, the social impact of this scientific production on digital social media remains unclear. To address this question, the present research has been proposed, aiming to analyze the social impact of scientific production on the use of Artificial Intelligence for emotions in the educational context. For this purpose, a sample of 243 scientific publications indexed in Scopus and Web of Science has been selected, from which a second sample of 6,094 social impact records has been extracted from Altmetric, Crossref, and PlumX databases. A dual analysis has been conducted using specially designed software: on one hand, the scientific sample has been analyzed from a bibliometric perspective, and on the other hand, the social impact records have been studied. Comparative analysis based on the two dimensions, scientific and social, has focused on the evolution of scientific production with its corresponding social impact, sources, impact, and content analysis. The results indicate that scientific publications have had a high social impact (with an average of 25.08 social impact records per publication), with a significant increase in research interest starting from 2019, likely driven by the emotional implications of measures taken to curb the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, a lack of alignment has been identified between articles with the highest scientific impact and those with the highest social impact, as well as a lack of alignment in the most commonly used terms from both scientific and social perspectives, a significant variability in the lag in months for scientific research to make an impact on social media, and the fact that the social impact of the research did not emerge from the interest of Twitter users unaffiliated with the research, but rather from the authors, publishers, or scientific institutions. The proposed comparative methodology can be applied to any field of study, making it a useful tool given that current trends in accreditation agencies propose the analysis of the repercussion of scientific research in social media.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.