Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Like the athletes we treat, the Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine (CJSM) is on the move. In its short life, CJSM has sought to bring to its readers an array of high-quality articles of direct and distinct clinical relevance. The founders of this publication recognized that the burgeoning discipline of sport medicine required a journal that married the interests of the practicing clinician with those of the clinical scientist or researcher in a periodical that was shaped by high standards of scholarship and a commitment to evidence-based medicine. We have, if we may be permitted a moment of immodesty, succeeded rather well. It is now apparent that CJSM is the leading journal of clinical sport medicine in the world. The most recent rankings of Science Citation Index impact factors reveal that our journal is the most highly ranked of its type—an accomplishment that is all the more remarkable given our youth. The impact factor gives an indication of the impact a journal is having in its field, as evidenced by the number of times the journal is cited in a year. CJSM now ranks 13th out of 59 publications in the sport sciences category, despite being the second youngest journal (as measured by cited half-life). Our success is due in no small part to the vision of the founding societies, the foresight of the founding editor, and an unswerving commitment to the needs of clinicians on the part of authors, reviewers, and editors. That CJSM is the publication of five professional societies on two continents speaks to the international reach of our publication. The journal continues to evolve. Systematic reviews of important clinical topics will be an increasingly common feature; abstracts of papers presented at the societies' scientific conferences will appear following a process of peer review; the journal will become accessible electronically by the second quarter of this year; and special, topical supplements will be published on an annual basis. All of which, we hope, will add further value to what we trust is a valued resource. CJSM has always had the goal of providing authoritative, scientific information of relevance to the clinician. Still, we recognize that there are many problems that the clinician faces where science cannot provide the answer. This year, we will be adding a practical management section that offers the opinion of experts on the treatment of common sport medicine problems. The aim of this new section will be to provide the clinician with the best available management strategies where hard scientific evidence may be lacking. In the months ahead we hope to add another dimension to CJSM by regularly publishing a variety of editorials. Our editorials may reflect comment or criticism stimulated by articles appearing in the body of the journal. More provocatively, we hope to publish perspectives and viewpoints on contemporary and controversial matters of distinct interest to the sport medicine practitioner and relevant to the world of sport, medicine, and society at large. We will welcome submissions as well as invite them, and hope that the editorial pages will soon become a site of learned comment, unbridled opinion, and literary flair! We are also aware of the photographic talents of many of our colleagues, and signal in this issue that we will be publishing black and white photographs submitted by our readers in the many areas of otherwise white space that appear in each volume. Predictably, photographs of sport and physical activity are obvious choices for publication but we welcome any images that you feel would have appeal for our readers. We have taken the liberty of offering the first photograph, which depicts the speed and fluid movement of a group of sprinters... poetry in motion. With these additions we hope that the journal will provide even more for your intellectual, verbal, and visual consideration. FIGUREFigure: Photo by W. Meeuwisse © 2000
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 | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, 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 ».