MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2273311453 · doi:10.1093/ajh/hpv173

A Message From the New Editorial Team at the American Journal of Hypertension

2015· review· en· W2273311453 sur OpenAlexaff
Ernesto L. Schiffrin, David A. Calhoun, John M. Flack, Sadayoshi Ito, R. Clinton Webb

Notice bibliographique

RevueAmerican Journal of Hypertension · 2015
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueHealth Sciences Research and Education
Établissements canadiensMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineMEDLINEFamily medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

It is with pleasure and enthusiasm but also some trepidation that with this issue we begin our editorial stewardship of the American Journal of Hypertension . Although most of us are experienced as Associate Editors or Editors-in-Chief of other journals in the field, we here assume the editorship of the journal founded and edited for many years by John Laragh, a titan in the field of hypertension. His insights, his remarkable ability to visualize in what direction the science in the field should move, and his foresight will be guiding lights for us in our work editing the Journal. We feel honored as well to succeed Mickey Alderman, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal for the past few years. Thus, our task ahead is a little daunting, following up on such giants in the field of hypertension. As we take on editing the American Journal of Hypertension , we have before us the challenge of maintaining and enhancing the impact that the Journal has in our field. This is determined mainly by the quality and novelty of the science that we publish, which of course depends directly on the quality of the manuscripts that we receive for publication. The authors that submit their papers to the Journal are therefore our most important asset, followed closely by our reviewers whose rigorous, fair, and balanced reviews will make sure that we only publish the best science. We look forward to publishing the best papers possible in the field of hypertension from all over the world. Our aim is to be the best scientific journal in the field and to be appreciated as such by authors and readers worldwide. Readers will notice a new cover, which we hope represents in some way a new beginning as we start this new period of the Journal under our editorship. There will be some changes that readers will notice gradually as we move forward. We intend to have a short editorial by the Editors that reviews the content of that particular issue of the Journal. We will also have Editorial comments written mainly by reviewers of some of the original articles published in the issue that we believe deserve a particular viewpoint to be expressed to provide the readers with a novel perspective or emphasize a finding. We may also highlight some personalities in the field of hypertension so that readers are well aware of major contributors, past and present, as well as up and coming, in our field and allied areas. The emphasis will however be on original articles, hopefully bringing to the Journal some of the best science in hypertension and related cardiovascular disease. We hope to publish basic, clinical, health services, and population science in approximately even proportions, although this may vary as manuscripts arrive to the editorial office for evaluation and potential publication. We are hoping that the numbers of manuscripts submitted will slowly increase, which will mean that acceptance rate may be reduced progressively. We intend to publish reviews on relevant subjects in the 4 main areas of the science of cardiovascular disease and hypertension. We will also dedicate pages to occasional new areas where mechanistic understanding has been illuminated by some recent publication, in a section that may be named “Mechanisms of disease.” Some of these will be commissioned, others may be submitted unsolicited, but they will always be subjected to rigorous review and not necessarily accepted unless they represent an in-depth scientific review of the highest quality. As we move forward, we expect our readers to provide us feedback that will inform us on how we are satisfying their needs and the extent to which they feel we are fulfilling our mandate to publish a scientific journal that provides the highest quality literature that is both informative and practical for scientists and practitioners in the field. We wish all our current and future readers happy reading and learning, as the current issue and some future ones move from articles edited by the past editor team, and the ones edited by us begin to fill the pages of the American Journal of Hypertension .

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,011
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: Éditorial
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,017
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,056

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0110,034
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0050,003
Bibliométrie0,0040,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,002
Communication savante0,0080,006
Science ouverte0,0040,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0170,017
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0150,011

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 Opus0,212
Tête enseignante GPT0,470
Écart entre enseignants0,258 · 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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentnon

Explorer davantage

Même revueAmerican Journal of HypertensionMême sujetHealth Sciences Research and EducationTravaux en français237 207