Thanks to JHCPU Reviewers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Thanks to JHCPU Reviewers Virginia M. Brennan, PhD, MA The scholars, scientists, clinicians, and community-based workers who review manuscripts for JHCPU perform a critical service, making the Journal what it is. All papers published in JHCPU have received two or more blind external peer reviews; most often, they go through a revision or two, for which the reviewers are also consulted. Furthermore, the reviews that we receive often go above and beyond the call of duty in how insightful and thorough they are. This Note from the Editor will serve as an introduction and an acknowledgment of our most active peer reviewers. The first list below is the short one—these are people who have written 20 or more high-quality reviews for JHCPU. They are true associates of the editorial team. We rely on their judgement and detailed assessments very regularly. The second list below is longer and just as important—these are people who have written between 10 and 19 high-quality reviews. Like the people on the short list, these reviewers shape the Journal in fundamental ways. Finally, online we list everyone who has reviewed for us during the past year. These reviewers are also big contributors: each one has completed between one and nine reviews. We are including these lists partly to show our readers and authors more about JHCPU's peer review process. We are also including them to acknowledge the reviewers publicly: without them, JHCPU would not exist. List One: Peer reviewer of 20 or more manuscripts Nelson Aguila NCI Center to Reduce Cancer Health Disparities (CRCHD) Thomas Arcury Wake Forest School of Medicine, Family & Community Medicine Sarah Blake Emory University, Rollins School of Public Health Earle Chambers Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University Family and Social Medicine Christopher Duffrin East Carolina University, Brody School of Medicine, Family Medicine Michelle Andrasik University of Washington, Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences Donna Biederman Duke University School of Nursing William Brandon University of North Carolina at Charlotte Professor Emeritus, Department of Political Science and Public Administration Jennifer Chen Harbor-UCLA Department of Emergency Medicine Caswell Evans University of Illinois, Chicago, Emeritus Professor [End Page vii] Alida M. Gertz University of Washington, Global Health Steven Hill Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Center for Financing, Access and Cost Trends (CFACT) Roy Grant Children's Health Fund, retired List Two: Peer reviewer of 10–19 manuscripts Diane Abatemarco Thomas Jefferson University Salam Abdus Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Jemma Alarcon University of California Irvine School of Medicine Beth Allen Allen Editorial Services and Syneos Health Mamie Anim Five Rivers Health Centers and Wright State University A. Ariza Children's Memorial Hospital, Child Health Research Renee Badzow D'Youville University, Health Administration and Public Health Aparna Balakrishnan Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine Ashley R. Banks Nationwide Children's Hospital Research Institute-Center for Innovation and Pediatric Practice Shoshana Bardach The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice Carey R. Bayer Morehouse School of Medicine Community Health and Preventive Medicine Satcher Health Leadership Institute Czarina Behrends Weill Cornell Medical College, Healthcare Research & Policy R. Benkert Wayne State University, Nursing Dave Bergeron Université du Québec à Rimouski, Department of Nursing Elizabeth Beverly Ohio University Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine Annika Billhult University of Borås Mara Bird NCLR/CSULB Center for Latino Community Health, Evaluation and Leadership Training Sarah Blackstone University of Virginia School of Medicine Department of Family Medicine Janice Blanchard George Washington University Medical School Deborah J. Bowen University of Washington, Bioethics and Humanities Melissa Bright University of Florida, Department of Health Outcomes and Policy Kelly Brittain Michigan State University College of Nursing Thomas D. Brothers Dalhousie University and University College London Todd Brown University of Alabama at Birmingham, Division of Cardiology Linda Bullock University of Virginia, School of Nursing Lillian Burke East Carolina University, Division of Hematology / Oncology [End Page viii] M. Byrne University of Miami, Department of Epidemiology Quinn Capers University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Patricia Carcaise-Edinboro Virginia Commonwealth University Department of Health Administration Heather Carmack James Madison University, School of Communication Studies Mark Cartoski Virginia Commonwealth University-Medical College of Virginia Natalie A. Ceballos Texas State University, Psychology Avik Chatterjee...
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 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 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 ».