From Static Bibliometrics to Dynamic Knowledge Graphs: An LLM-Powered Framework for Modernizing Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI) Analytics

Engineering notes

Engineering notes will be added by the aipentium editorial team.

Chinese explanation / 中文解读

中文解读待补充：本站会优先为大语言模型、生成式AI、ChatGPT相关技术、计算机视觉、深度学习等高价值论文补充中文说明。

Original abstract

Bibliometric indicators - citation counts, h-indexes, co-authorship networks - have long anchored science, technology, and innovation (STI) analytics, yet suffer from temporal lag, semantic shallowness, and an inability to capture the non-linear dynamics of contemporary knowledge ecosystems. Dynamic knowledge graphs and large language models (LLMs) have each been proposed as remedies, but neither is sufficient alone: existing scholarly knowledge graphs remain largely static, while LLM-driven pipelines are prone to hallucination, opacity, and corpus bias without structured grounding. This paper proposes a hybrid, symbolic-first framework integrating all three traditions under explicit methodological constraint. Organized across five layers - an open scholarly data backbone, a dynamic versioned knowledge graph, a constrained LLM-assisted semantic augmentation layer, a multi-layer validation pipeline, and an analytics layer - the framework positions LLMs strictly as generators of provisional candidate enrichments. Candidates become analytically admissible only after passing structural, evidentiary, comparative, and selective expert validation, with full provenance recorded at every stage. The analytics layer supports both established bibliometric indicators and extended graph-based analyses, including trend emergence detection, science-to-technology pathway mapping, and policy-oriented gap analysis. The framework's central theoretical contribution is treating validation as the mediating principle between semantic flexibility and epistemic discipline, enabling STI analytics that is semantically richer and temporally more responsive than static bibliometrics while remaining aligned with the evidentiary standards of science-of-science research. Governance considerations addressing reproducibility, bias, and auditability are also discussed.

Links and sources

• Official / arXiv page
• PDF from original source

Comments