Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Addiction has long taken an interest in how research in its specialist field of interest is made to happen. It has also given attention to the related questions of how the quality and integrity of that research is to be enhanced. An example of the commitment to that line of thinking includes the Journal Interview series in which Addiction invites distinguished researchers to give an account of their careers, and identify the shaping influences. The first contribution to that series was published in 1979 with D. L. Davies 1, while the next will be interview no. 89 with William Miller as the subject 2. The individual scientist is always the actor at the centre of the research play, but there is also a need to examine various aspects of infrastructure. To that end Addiction has taken a close interest in establishing collaboration between specialist journals in its field of interest and mechanisms of scientific dissemination, with a working collaboration enjoyed with the International Society of Addiction Journal Editors (ISAJE). Addiction is a signatory to the Farmington Consensus 3. A forthcoming series on ‘Vested interests in addiction research and policy’ will explore important matters relating to the integrity of the science base—an issue to which Addiction has given repeated attentions 4. Much addiction research has for many years been the product of specialised research centres rather than the contribution of stand alone scientists, and it is the specialist centres, in collaboration often with the national funding agencies, which today assert leadership, set agendas, and help determine standards. It is therefore logical that Addiction, as part of its effort to explore how the science is made, should be seen to encourage exploration of how these centres function. The journal first published a Research Centres series with a launch in 1987 and with a total of 18 contributions on that occasion. An introductory editorial at that time sought to put some questions around the creation and functioning of these types of institutions within a historical perspective: the founding role of Yale and of the Addiction Research Foundation of Toronto cannot be doubted 5. At the same time the series attempted to put the specialist addiction enterprise within a general science policy frame—how with inevitably limited resources does society best organise science to get value for money? Returning to the same topic twenty years further along the road, the journal has decided to give its new Centres series the subtitle ‘The Nurturing of Creativity’. That phrasing is purposeful, and we see as the core question (and key challenge), how the spark of true creativity in addiction science is to be nurtured. How is a micro-culture favourable to creativity to be brought into being in a particular office block? Contributors to this series will be asked to reflect very closely on that question and on the mechanisms which are likely to contribute to fulfilment of the ambition. What, for instance, is the role of personal leadership, but also how is a creative collegiate atmosphere built? How do staff meetings best support fresh thinking or, at a minimum, not crush such ambition? How does a centre look after and develop the careers of its junior staff? What is conversation like at coffee time? Thomas Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions6 distinguished between ‘normal’ science and science which challenged paradigms. The intention of this series will in part be to force questions around how, in the next couple of decades, the scientific community may create addiction science which dares shape new paradigms. The journal is grateful to researchers who have very kindly agreed to contribute to the new research series, and to Emmanuel Kuntsche and his colleagues for giving it a good start 7. If there are other research centres anywhere in the world that would like to be added to the list, please be sure to let Addiction know.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».