Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In recent times, there has been a recognised need for innovation and progression within academic institutions, to ensure that evidenced-based research and applied articles are available to the entire strength and conditioning (S&C) community. With research often taking several years to reach publication, being subject to high publications costs, and the content often only accessible through a paywall, the number of open-access journals has risen over the past decade, with approximately 12% of the world's articles being published in fully open-access journals.1 The authors suggest that is increase is due, in part, to the fact that authors (and funders') feel that research published on publicly funded research should be free for anyone to read. In an article published in Nature, titled Open access: The true cost of science publishing,2 Michael Eisen, a molecular biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, argues that scientists can get much better value by publishing in open-access journals, which make articles free for everyone to read. When asked about the cost of publication, Eisen responded: “It’s still ludicrous how much it costs to publish research – let alone what we pay. The biggest travesty is that the scientific community carries out peer review – a major part of scholarly publishing, for free, yet subscription-journal publishers charge billions of dollars per year, all told, for scientists to read the final product.” (p. 426). To help bridge the gap between academia and the strength and conditioning field of practice, there is a need to offer publication to a broader range of academics, students, coaches and other practitioners to deliver a unique and innovative publication model through the use of Open Journal Systems.3 Such transformative approaches to publication are well recognised. Most recently, John Willinsky provides further endorsement of the Open Journal approach in his article published in Slaw, Canada's Online Legal Magazine.4 Willinsky highlights that the advantages of a subscribe-to-open model go beyond this simplicity: “No article processing charges for authors to pay (as in many other open access journals). No 12-36 month embargoes before the work is open. No revenue loss or quality reduction for publishers.” The International Universities Strength and Conditioning Association (IUSCA) Journal offers the world’s first, free to submit, free to publish, open access journal in the field of strength and conditioning. Such a platform provides significant opportunity for international strength and conditioning collaboration, and a pathway for undergraduate and postgraduate students, and academic staff, to publish strength and conditioning research through an innovative community peer-review model, which will allow all members of the IUSCA community to take part in the review process. It is with great pleasure that I welcome you to the IUSCA Journal. Stephen P. Bird, Ph.D. Editor-in-Chief, IUSCA Journal.
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 | 0,006 | 0,032 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,015 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,010 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,277 | 0,175 |
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 ».