Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Specifically, the week is 27 January–2 February 2018, 3 days before this Editorial is due and 2 days before the Super Bowl. The January issue was published 2 weeks ago and the web activity has returned to normal. The AAPM completed 1 year with Wiley last 31 December 2017 and with one more month completed, it seems right to take a measure of our activity. That week we had visits from 14 129 unique IP addresses. Consider there are about 25 000 active medical physicists with clinical duties in the world; probably up to one quarter of these physicists visit the JACMP each week. Most of the others are likely either professionals or members of the public looking for technical information about radiology and radiation oncology physics practice. Also, we note that during that period, 6224 JACMP articles were downloaded. How do our users get to the JACMP web site? These are the top sites that refer our users: This is not surprising, but the fact that the general search engines drive many visitors to the website is encouraging. One of the functions of the JACMP is worldwide outreach for the AAPM. By offering clinical articles without a paywall, all clinical medical physicists and all patients, who are imaged or receive radiation therapy, directly and immediately benefit from JACMP scholarly investigations. In turn, our worldwide users are invited to investigate the many benefits that can only be had with AAPM membership. The AAPM Practice Guidelines have always been popular downloads. There are many Canadian Organization of Medical Physicists (COMP) reports the JACMP will be publishing over the next several months; we expected these documents to be quite popular as well. The United States now represents slightly less than one-third of JACMP web activity. JACMP submissions and published articles follow about the same geographic percentages as its web activity. About half of JACMP users are English speaking, and half come from non-English speaking countries. Consider what the AAPM has to offer the medical physicists of the world. There is a massive amount of published scholarship and technical reports within the AAPM archives dealing not only with clinical medical physics but also with the science, education, administration and management/professional science of medical physics. There is no other comparable archive anywhere that matches this history and breadth of information. Clinical physicists need not reinvent the wheel as they seek to establish clinical physics practice in the nations of the world. So, I suggest to all JACMP users everywhere that AAPM membership is a next logical step as you realize your calling and your life's work. Finally, this past week the JACMP was challenged with a breach of publishing ethics. Wiley, the Associate Editor and I answered this challenge, but it raises this point: Membership in the AAPM requires the highest level of commitment to ethical behavior. AAPM documents on ethical behavior and practice are available on line. Before you apply for AAPM Membership, you should review these documents and commit yourself to their ethical requirements. You should do this because only by subscribing to ethics in professional behavior will we together realize the promise of a bright future for our profession. You can find relevant AAPM policies on ethics here: https://www.aapm.org/medical_physicist/ethics.asp https://www.aapm.org/org/policies/details.asp?id=260&type=PP¤t=true You may find the AAPM categories of membership, benefits, and the process for application here: https://www.aapm.org/memb/?tab=3#MemberAppPanel https://www.aapm.org/memb/?tab=1 https://www.aapm.org/memb/prospect/apply.asp So, let this be the day you align yourself with your calling and its ethical requirements. If it seems compelling to you, we invite you to become a member of the AAPM. I thank Associate Editors-in-Chief Timothy Solberg and Per Halvorsen for their valuable and perceptive comments.
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 | 0,006 | 0,028 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 ».