MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W243232405 · doi:10.1177/0145482x1210600902

Dr. Wormsley's Greeting

2012· article· en· W243232405 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Diane P. Wormsley

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Visual Impairment & Blindness · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésFeelingBest practicePsychologyPopulationFace (sociological concept)ReputationPublic relationsPolitical scienceSociologySocial psychologyLawSocial science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

I cannot say hello without personally thanking Dr. Geruschat for his priceless contribution as editor in chief of JVIB since 2004. In my estimation, his stamp on the journal has cemented its position as the highly respected professional journal of record for the field of visual impairment and has helped it gain the international reputation that it holds today. One of the many discussions that he and I have had recently, in trying to make this editorial shift a seamless transition, involved our feelings regarding the importance of JVIB's contribution to building a solid base of research evidence for the field. Although the body of research for our field has grown over the years, as professionals, we still do not have the answers to so many practice-related questions that constantly concern us. This fact was brought home to me in a very tangible way a few years ago, when I was asked to contribute to a book chapter focused on highlighting evidence-based best practices for children who are blind or visually impaired, complete with the research supporting each practice. While trying to compile research evidence that would support what I considered to be best practices, I found that I had to eliminate several options, when no research support surfaced. My resulting frustration made me realize how seriously limited our research base is. One of the difficulties we face as researchers is that is it almost impossible to do any large-scale quantitative research with a population that is so extremely heterogeneous. As a field we need to encourage high-quality qualitative research utilizing case studies and single-subject design and perform more longitudinal research, which can be translated into guidance for practitioners. And the journal needs associate editors who feel comfortable working with articles that present this type of research for publication. Toward that end, I am pleased to have Steve LaGrow, from Massey University in New Zealand, with his expertise in single-subject research design, join our other associate editors, Carol Farrenkopf, from the Toronto District School Board, and Maureen Duffy, from Vision-Aware.org. Also, Robert Wall Emerson, from Western Michigan University, has joined the journal as a consulting editor for research. I am excited about joining this team, and I sincerely hope that I can maintain the journal with the same integrity and quality as Dr. Geruschat. As I step into his gargantuan shoes, I welcome readers' thoughts concerning JVIB. You can reach me at . DIANE P. WORMSLEY, PH.D. EDITOR IN CHIEF A Note to Readers: This issue of JVIB marks a transition in leadership from Dr. Duane R. Geruschat to Dr. Diane P. Wormsley as editor in chief of the journal. Dr. Geruschat, who began his role as editor in chief 2005, has had a long association with JVIB. He served two terms as a member of its Editorial Advisory Board--from 1992 to 1997 and again in 2002 to 2004--when he was named associate editor for JVIB. In addition, he was guest editor, along with Dr. Anne Corn, of the 2004 JVIB Special Issue on Low Vision and the guest editor of the 1993 Special Issue on Residential Schools as well. …

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 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)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,105
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,722

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,106
Tête enseignante GPT0,498
Écart entre enseignants0,392 · 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 tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

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

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

En bref

Citations0
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Visual Impairment & BlindnessMême sujetAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilityTravaux en français237 207