Skip to content

R0058/2026-04-03/C001/S02
Research R0058 — Candidate evidence test
Run 2026-04-03
Claim C001
Search S02

WebSearch — Direct search for the Roytburg & Miller paper and related bibliometric studies on AI safety/ethics homophily

Summary

Field Value
Source/Database WebSearch
Query terms Roytburg Miller "Mind the Gap" AI safety ethics research homophily network analysis and AI safety ethics research community homophily 83% bridging authors bibliometric
Filters None
Results returned 20
Results selected 3
Results rejected 17

Selected Results

Result Title URL Rationale
S02-R01 Mind the Gap! (arXiv abs) https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.10058 Abstract page with submission metadata and conference acceptance status
S02-R02 Mind the Gap! (ResearchGate) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/398602061_Mind_the_Gap_Pathways_Towards_Unifying_AI_Safety_and_Ethics_Research Alternative hosting with potential citation metrics
S02-R03 AI Ethics: A Bibliometric Analysis, Critical Issues, and Key Gaps https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.14681 Independent bibliometric analysis of AI ethics field structure

Rejected Results

Result Title URL Rationale
S02-R04 Ethics and privacy of AI: Understandings from bibliometrics (ScienceDirect) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0950705121002574 Focuses on privacy rather than safety-ethics divide; low relevance
S02-R05 A bibliometric view of AI Ethics development (arXiv) https://arxiv.org/pdf/2403.05551 General AI ethics bibliometrics without safety-ethics community analysis
S02-R06 Minding the gap(s): public perceptions of AI (Springer) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00146-022-01422-1 About public perceptions, not research community structure
S02-R07 Mind the gap! On the future of AI research (Nature) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-021-00750-9 Different paper with same title phrase; not about safety-ethics divide
S02-R08 Can we Bridge AI's responsibility gap at Will? (Springer) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10677-022-10313-9 Philosophical paper on responsibility, not bibliometric analysis
S02-R09 Bibliometric analysis of AI in business ethics (Wiley) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/beer.12797 Business ethics focus, not safety-ethics research divide
S02-R10 Mind the Gap! Bridging XAI and Human Understanding (arXiv) https://arxiv.org/html/2302.03460v3 About explainable AI communication, not community structure
S02-R11 Charting the Landscape of AI Ethics: A Bibliometric Analysis (De Gruyter) https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/ijdlg-2025-0007/html Selected in S04 instead — relevant bibliometric study
S02-R12 AI Ethics Bibliometric Analysis (IGI Global) https://www.igi-global.com/article/ai-ethics/338367 Duplicate coverage of Gao et al. already captured
S02-R13 AI ethics in ophthalmology bibliometric analysis (Nature) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-025-01976-6 Domain-specific (ophthalmology), not relevant to safety-ethics divide
S02-R14 Ethics in the Era of ChatGPT (SAGE) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00472395251356520 About ChatGPT ethics specifically, not community structure
S02-R15 Structural bias and geographical imbalances in AI ethics (IJIRSS) https://ijirss.com/index.php/ijirss/article/download/9202/2064/15553 Geographic focus, not safety-ethics community divide
S02-R16 Minding the gap(s) (PhilPapers) https://philpapers.org/rec/SARMTG Duplicate of S02-R06 on different platform
S02-R17 Minding the gap(s) (Semantic Scholar) https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Minding-the-gap(s):-public-perceptions-of-AI-and-Sartori-Bocca/785b350274dabe7449106c861ca9030e6792bc98 Duplicate of S02-R06 on different platform
S02-R18 Mind the Gap! (arXiv PDF) https://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.10058 PDF version of already-captured primary source
S02-R19 Ethics and privacy of AI (ResearchGate) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350582963_Ethics_and_privacy_of_artificial_intelligence_Understandings_from_bibliometrics Duplicate of S02-R04 on different platform
S02-R20 OpenCitations publications https://opencitations.net/publications/ Platform page, not a specific relevant study

Notes

Two parallel searches were run and results consolidated. The primary source dominated results across both queries, confirming it is the most-cited work on this specific topic. No contradicting studies were found that dispute the 83.1% homophily figure.