Some Thoughts on the 25th AnniversaryOf The Great Plains Quarterly
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In the Winter of 1981, Frederick C. Luebke sent out a letter to accompany the first issue of the Great Plains Quarterly. In the letter, he stated that the purpose of the new journal was to publish new discoveries and understandings about the Great Plains, and to do so in a language that would appeal to the general reader. For these reasons, Luebke felt that "persons with a lively interest in the Great Plains region will find much to attract them to the Quarterly." Twenty-four volumes later, and after publishing three-hundred and sixty-one original essays, it is safe to say that the creation of the Great Plains Quarterly was a good move for the Center for Great Plains Studies, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and the entire region. To commemorate the 25 th anniversary of the Great Plains Quarterly, I asked all of the former directors of the Center for Great Plains Studies, and all of the former editors of the Quarterly, to reflect upon their experiences and help me address the question of why there is a need for a publication like the Quarterly. In doing so, each of these persons, who all left an important imprint upon the Quarterly, have helped me better understand the contributions of an interdisciplinary regional publication. Frederick C. Luebke is the Charles J. Mach Distinguished Professor of History, Emeritus, at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and served as Director of the Center for Great Plains Studies from 1983 until 1988. He was the founding editor of the Great Plains Quarterly, and served in that position until 1984. Although Fred's vision for the Quarterly is very clearly articulated in the editor's introduction to the first issue of the journal, his responses to my questions add some important background to the decision to create this publication. Fred notes that one impetus was "to transcend the boundaries of University of Nebraska-Lincoln. That is to say, we wished to enhance the reputation of the University of Nebraska as a center of regional interdisciplinary research." The Center for Great Plains Studies first publications took the form of edited books that emerged from the early symposiums, i.e., The Great Plains: Environment and Culture (1978), and Ethnicity on the Great Plains (1980). However, although the symposium and subsequent publications included prominent and distinguished participants, and all work was subjected to rigorous external and anonymous reviews, it was felt that relying on book publications had too many limitations given the mission of the Center. Therefore, the group of professors involved in the planning of the Center proposed to inaugurate the publication of a scholarly journal on a quarterly basis devoted to interdisciplinary research related to the Great Plains. This was easy to propose, but, as Fred describes, "the process required a lead-time of about two years to solicit manuscripts, establish review procedures, create a design, acquire subscriptions, contract printing arrangements, attract advertisers, engage editorial assistants and copy editors, develop book review procedures and the submission of reviews of worthy books, and appoint a panel of advisory editors." One of the reasons this process was so involved, and one of the reasol'lS it still takes considerable time to publish the Quarterly today, is the high standards set by Fred and the Center for the quality of work. Fred notes that, "as founding editor, I insisted on recruiting the best possible work being done in the field of Great Plains studies. If this publication was to find its place as a major publication in regional studies, it had to attract the contributions and participation of distinguished scholars. Hence I recruited nationally and internationally to get a well-known board of advisory editors from whom, I hoped, I could also solicit article manuscripts and book reviews. I always aimed high; I was rarely turned down by anyone."
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 | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| 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 | 0,008 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,043 | 0,010 |
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 ».