Notice bibliographique
Résumé
EditOriALWe would like to open this issue, which marks nearly the end of the second year of our tenure as MJE co-editors, and of the second complete MJE volume that we've shepherded through the publication process, by thanking our reviewers.Over the journal's almost fifty years, our reviewers have come to number almost two thousand (as we learned through a recent count).It is not the faceless two thousand that we wish to acknowledge here, but the individuals behind that daunting number: the ones who, over the course of the last two years, we, as 'green' editors, have relied upon to give of their time in providing appraisals of pieces in various states of being ready (or not yet) for publication.These individuals are academics (established and emerging) who work or conduct research at various universities, English and French, across North America and around the world.As newcomers to journal editing, we hadn't given a great deal of thought to reviewing; it was something that we understood was important to do as academics but that we very much took for granted.In two years, we have learned a great deal from our reviewers, lessons that have no doubt informed our own practices as reviewers for other journals, including "being good" by respecting deadlines: a small but crucial part of the review / publication process.As Anthony Paré, previous editor of the MJE, has remarked (45, 1), the amount of time most reviewers give to thoughtful and often long and detailed reviews is chastening, especially when we consider that reviewers perform this service for a given piece not once but frequently twice, and when we also consider that the value ascribed to academic reviewing (a cornerstone of the publication process, on which we all rely) is rapidly being eroded in favour of other so-called priorities; where even reviewing has become the focus of "cherry-picking:" of being implicitly or explicitly encouraged to undertake only those guaranteed to stand out on a CV or for the purposes of securing merit.And yet we would not be able to exist as a peer-reviewed, open access journal-a common space for scholarly dialogue and exchange on issues important to education locally, nationally and internationally-without that "essential service."All the more reason to take the time to heartfully say: thank you, reviewers!We at the MJE appreciate the work that you have done for all of us, and hope to be able to call on you again in the future.All the best for the new year!
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 | 0,040 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,207 | 0,144 |
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 ».