Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The journal Haemophilia has now completed 10 years of publication and appropriately there is a newly designed cover to take us into the next decade. The launch issue was produced in October 1994 and represented a challenge taken up by Blackwell Science and supported by haemophilia treaters particularly Professor Pier Mannucci, Dr Peter Jones and Dr Shelby Dietrich who was then responsible for publications at WFH. Dr Peter Jones facilitated the incorporation of the journal in the decade plan of WFH 1994–2004 and the spelling Haemophilia rather than Hemophilia was established. Dr Doreen Brettler agreed to act as the North American editor whilst I managed the European office. The editorial published in Haemophilia 1995; 1:1 is reproduced below: The field of haemophilia has always been one that changes rapidly. It provides one of the best examples in medicine of how advances in basic science and clinical research can, in a very short time, lead to advances in clinical practice. There continues to be a steady expansion of the scientific literature relating to the comprehensive care of haemophilia. Increasingly, such literature is distributed amongst a variety of specialist journals and it is sometimes difficult for the health-care professional to keep up-to-date. The practice of haemophilia also spans a wide medical spectrum: clinical, laboratory diagnosis, surgical, immunological, virological, orthopaedic, psychosocial, and many more. Therefore the publication of Haemophilia, dedicated to the exchange of information concerning the comprehensive care of haemophilia, is timely. Haemophilia will be a quarterly journal, and will contain review articles, original scientific papers and case reports related to haemophilia care. This should be a journal for the whole comprehensive care team and will not be limited to basic medical science. It should prove applicable to both the ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ world; we are therefore including in each issue relevant abstracts, in full, from other journals. In each issue there will also be an historical annotation, with a commentary about a scientific observation which has profoundly influenced haemophilia treatment. As the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia, it is intended that the abstracts from the biannual meeting of the Federation will be published in Haemophilia. The success of a new journal depends on the partnership of its readers, authors, editors and publishers. We hope you will join with us to ensure the success of Haemophilia and thereby further the rational treatment of haemophilic patients. Since that time we have published 10 volumes with page ranges 286 (1995) – 760 (2004) and moved from quarterly to bimonthly in 1998. As the official journal of WFH the abstracts of the XXII (Dublin), XXIII (The Hague), XXIV (Montreal), XXV (Seville) and XXVI (Bangkok) meetings have been published thus enabling abstracts to be cited. In 1999, Dr Craig Kessler became the North American Editor. State of the Art volumes have been produced in 1998, 2002 and 2004 to accompany the respective WFH meetings. Haemophilia has certainly been ‘dedicated to the exchange of information concerning the comprehensive care of haemophilia’. There has been a formidable international authorship exemplified by publications last year which included contributions from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Iran, Italy, Japan, Norway, Philippines, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, the Netherlands and United Kingdom. Haemophilia ranks 35 in a list of 61 haematology journals in the science citation index. Our overall acceptance rate is 44.9%. The impact factor11 Number of citations appearing in the literature in 2003 which specifically cite articles published in the journal in 2001/2002 (387) divided by the number of source items published in the journal during 2001 and 2002 (248). for 2003 was 1.56. We hope the now well established partnership of readers, authors, editors, reviewers and publishers of Haemophilia will continue to flourish during the next decade and beyond. CHRISTINE A. LEE
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,245 | 0,147 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».