MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The new year brings editorial changes to IWJ

2009· article· en· W1516526814 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Keith G Harding, Douglas Queen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Wound Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEditorial boardExcellenceMedicineLibrary scienceManagementPublic relationsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following our successful first five years of publication the International Wound Journal has made some changes to its editorial structure. We have disbanded our Editorial Executive team as the main function of this group was to act as ambassadors to help establish the Journal. We wish to thank our Editorial Executives for helping to make the journal the success. All of our Editorial Executives have agreed to remain as members of our Editorial Board and some have become Associate Editors. We have created this new role of Associate Editor to help take the IWJ forward for the next five years. This role will continue to support the philosophy of internationalism and interdisciplinary nature of the journal. These individuals will provide guest editorials on a number of current and important global issues; will deliver important review articles on interesting topics and will also work with authors to help continue the high quality content that the IWJ has provided to date. Please join us in welcoming our new Associate Editorial Team: Prof. David Armstrong, Podiatrist, Researcher, USA Prof. David Leaper, General Surgeon, Researcher United Kingdom Prof. Kyoichi Matsuzaki, Plastic Surgeon, Researcher, Japan Heather Orsted, Nurse, Educator, Canada Prof. Patricia Price, Statistical Advisor, Researcher, United Kingdom Prof. Gregory Schultz, Biochemist, Researcher, USA Prof. Geoff Sussman, Pharmacist, Educator, Australia These are individuals who bring the diversity, internationalism and experience required to drive the IWJ to the next level. All have accepted this challenge and are enthused with enhancing the IWJ in 2009 and beyond. So in 2009 what, as readers, do you have to look forward to! Well, in addition to increasing quality and quantity of papers our new Associate Editors will provide guest editorials on relevant topics. Sometimes these will focus on regional matters, other times dealing with international issues. Many will contain important new information and occasionally they will address deliberately provocative subjects. This is a team of individuals who will help broaden the perspectives of our journal and its editorial content.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Wound JournalSame topicBiomedical Ethics and RegulationFrench-language works237,207