Bibliographic record
Abstract
S ince Family Process began 46 years ago as the pioneering voice in family therapy theory, practice, and research, the world has become in one sense smaller, and in another, far more complex.We are able to communicate with one another across continents and oceans with the speed afforded by technology and air travel.At the same time, our appreciation of international differences has deepened, and the need for theoretical models, practice, and research to address these differences has never been greater.The reach of the journal, through online subscriptions, both personal and institutional, is increasingly worldwide.Among the top 10 users of the journal through Blackwell Synergy, seven are in countries outside the United States, including such places as the University of Zagreb and the University of Queensland.Among the top 10 downloaded articles last year, three were written by authors outside the United States, and among the top 10 cited articles last year, three were from authors outside English-speaking countries.Among submissions to Family Process in each year of my editorship, approximately half have been from countries outside the United States; two thirds were from European countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, China, and Israel, with the remainder from developing nations.However, examining the publication trends, accepted and published papers are three fourths from the United States and one fourth from a combination of European countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and Israel, with no publications from Central and South America, Asian countries outside Japan, the Middle East aside from Israel, and Africa.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.037 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.007 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".