Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Producing this academic journal is an effort by many people from around the world. Most prominent among them are our authors, of course. But the unsung heroes of the journal are our reviewers, and those who kindly assisted us in 2018 we list in this issue of International Migration. Our reviewers are not paid for their time but offer it in a spirit of community and duty to the integrity of academic publishing. Most academic journals use a system of double-blind peer review, a long-established way to ensure the integrity of the publications. Although some contest the continued utility of the double-blind review method of striving for excellence, this journal continues to believe that it is the best system available for assessing the quality of the manuscripts that we receive. We want our readers, whether scholars, officials or the public at large, to have confidence in what they find in this journal. We also believe that reviewing is an essential way to participate in the collective endeavour of publishing, in fact, a responsibility of membership in an academic discipline. We at International Migration (the owner of the journal, The International Organization for Migration, the publisher, John Wiley and Sons, and I, the Editor) are extremely appreciative of the time that our reviewers offer to us and to the academic community. Anonymous reviews are at the heart of our claim to be distinct from what is now called fake news, the deeply partisan portrayals of events and offerings of partisan opinion that are represented as objective fact. Double-blind peer review is also among those features that distinguish academic publishing from journalism. Although both journalists and social scientists report on societal events, trends and their influences, journalists largely give us immediacy, whereas social scientists provide sustained research and analysis. Both have their rightful place in the public consciousness, something that cannot be said for fake news. Over the past decade, journalists have allowed us to observe the tragic events in the Middle East with often detailed daily developments. In this issue of International Migration, two special sections give us insights gained from sustained research and analysis on two of the most severe, the many migration effects of the wars in Iraq and in Syria. The first, Guest Edited by Rochelle Davis and Vicki Valosik, is titled “Displacement and Return in Iraq”. The second is “Syrian Refugees –Facing Challenges, Making Choices” with Guest Editors Ahmet İçduygu and Deniz Sert. Both offer us remarkable accounts of the ways in which people in these countries and those societies to which many have fled have adapted to the excruciating conditions of war, the often sudden and highly disruptive changes in their lives, the endless uncertainty, violence and displacement. Although many testaments to human resilience are to be found in reading these articles, so too are the deep challenges to national governments and the agencies of the international community in trying to mitigate the disasters that warfare brings. We hope that these special sections offer information and analyses that help governments and the international community better intervene to protect lives, human rights and the well-being of those forced to leave their homes.
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 | 0,004 | 0,037 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,206 | 0,140 |
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 ».