4.6 Article

Understanding the domain of driving distraction with knowledge graphs

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 17, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278822

关键词

-

资金

  1. Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project [2021SHZDZX0100]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to provide insights into the driving distraction domain systematically using scientific knowledge graphs. Through bibliometric analysis and research content analysis, the study reveals the trends, significance, and future directions of this field.
This paper aims to provide insight into the driving distraction domain systematically on the basis of scientific knowledge graphs. For this purpose, 3,790 documents were taken into consideration after retrieving from Web of Science Core Collection and screening, and two types of knowledge graphs were constructed to demonstrate bibliometric information and domain-specific research content respectively. In terms of bibliometric analysis, the evolution of publication and citation numbers reveals the accelerated development of this domain, and trends of multidisciplinary and global participation could be identified according to knowledge graphs from Vosviewer. In terms of research content analysis, a new framework consisting of five dimensions was clarified, including objective factors, human factors, research methods, data and data science. The main entities of this domain were identified and relations between entities were extracted using Natural Language Processing methods with Python 3.9. In addition to the knowledge graph composed of all the keywords and relationships, entities and relations under each dimension were visualized, and relations between relevant dimensions were demonstrated in the form of heat maps. Furthermore, the trend and significance of driving distraction research were discussed, and special attention was given to future directions of this domain.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据