方法对比
并排查看您选择的方法;存在差异的行会高亮显示。
| 共词分析× | 范围界定审查× | |
|---|---|---|
| 领域 | 科学计量学 | 科学计量学 |
| 方法族 | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| 起源年份≠ | 1983 | 2005 |
| 提出者≠ | Michel Callon, Jean-Pierre Courtial, and colleagues | Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley |
| 类型≠ | Scientometric network analysis technique | Evidence synthesis review design |
| 开创性文献≠ | Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., Turner, W. A., & Bauin, S. (1983). From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Social Science Information, 22(2), 191–235. DOI ↗ | Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. DOI ↗ |
| 别名 | keyword co-occurrence analysis, co-word mapping, keyword co-word network, CWA | scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map |
| 相关 | 6 | 6 |
| 摘要≠ | Co-word analysis is a scientometric technique that quantifies how often pairs of keywords, subject terms, or title words appear together across a corpus of publications. By treating simultaneous occurrence as a proxy for conceptual relatedness, it constructs networks and clusters that reveal the intellectual structure, dominant themes, and emerging sub-fields of a research domain. | A scoping review is a systematic evidence-synthesis method that maps the breadth and nature of research on a topic — identifying key concepts, evidence types, and gaps — without necessarily appraising study quality or pooling effect sizes. Developed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and refined by Levac and colleagues (2010), it is particularly valuable for emerging or heterogeneous fields where a full systematic review would be premature or infeasible. |
| ScholarGate数据集 ↗ |
|
|