MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1940829514 · doi:10.3822/ijtmb.v1i2.27

On Refining Certain IJTMB Features

2008· article· en· W1940829514 sur OpenAlex
Glenn M. Hymel

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

venuePublié dans une revue dont le pays d'attache est le Canada.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueInternational Journal of Therapeutic Massage & Bodywork Research Education & Practice · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueMedical Research and Practices
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRefining (metallurgy)Computer scienceProcess engineeringMaterials scienceMetallurgyEngineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In the process of publishing the first two issues of the International Journal of Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork (IJTMB), needed refinements of four features of the journal became apparent. These are now reflected in the appropriate sectors of the journal’s website. What follows is a synopsis of those refinements. The first refinement bearing on journal policy and procedure is that of publication frequency. The journal’s inaugural year of 2008 has obviously seen the publication of issues in August and December. Beginning in 2009, the IJTMB will publish articles (a) collectively on a quarterly basis and (b) individually as they become available for immediate release. In the former case, the quarterly issues will appear—as originally planned—in March, June, September and December. In the latter instance, immediately-released-upon-availability articles will appear in a designated “Immediate Release/In Press” issue to be published in the interim period between the most recent and the next scheduled quarterly issues. (The “In Press” reference here is obviously to the next scheduled quarterly issue in which the previously released-upon-availability individual articles will appear collectively.) This “hybrid” model of sorts for publishing the journal’s entries accommodates the obvious need for individual scholarly contributions to be released as soon as they become available. It still maintains, however, the integrity of collective quarterly issues that provides an anticipated publication schedule with the periodic option of theme-specific issues of the journal. The second refinement necessitating further clarification relates to the obvious availability of electronic encyclopedias and online knowledge-sharing tools as possible literature review citations(cf. 1–3). The IJTMB strongly encourages authors to use professional literature citations from recognized genres of scholarly publications such as peer-reviewed journal articles in print or electronic format and authored or edited books. In so doing, the journal emphasizes that reliance on reputable primary rather than secondary sources is obviously a standard procedure that is certainly preferred. The appeal to electronic encyclopedias and online knowledge-sharing tools should be made only in those circumstances in which more generally recognized scholarly sources are unavailable or incompatible with the author’s intent. When such is the case, these citations must be embedded parenthetically in the manuscript’s narrative as opposed to their being included as entries in the References section. A third recently re-visited journal feature concerns one aspect of the guidelines for ensuring a double-blind review process(cf. 4–8). Previously, the Author Guidelines sector of the journal’s website required that, in the context of a submitted manuscript, the term “Author” be used in the bibliographic citations and footnotes instead of the author’s name. In this regard, the aforementioned refinement no longer mandates this substitution of “Author” in place of the author’s surname in designated locations. However, the relaxing of this earlier demand on contributing authors makes it even more imperative that authors refrain from using the first person singular or plural in the manuscript’s narrative. The fourth feature of the journal requiring further elaboration relates to the intended scope of coverage of the various journal sections. The Editorial and News/Announcements sections are self-explanatory and certainly do not necessitate the extent of narrative description most needed by the remaining sections—specifically, the Research, Education, Practice, and Commentaries sections. These scope of coverage descriptions are now provided in detail in the Focus and Scope sector of the journal’s website. The assumption here is that readers and prospective authors stand to benefit from these narrative characterizations that provide specificity of intent regarding the journal’s broad-based coverage. These four refinements are expected to enhance the effectiveness of the journal with respect to both its content and process. Reactions are encouraged from the readership as further adjustments to the journal are recognized as potentially helpful to its development.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,018
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,069
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,839
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0180,069
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,006
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,280
Tête enseignante GPT0,617
Écart entre enseignants0,337 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle