Bibliographic record
Abstract
This journal aims to be the definitive international source for important and relevant information on occupational and environmental health research and practice, and in 2012 we continued to fulfil that mission. The number of papers submitted to the journal peaked in 2010 at about 700 after rising steeply for several consecutive years, but since then has declined modestly to about 660 papers in 2012. Despite the mild slowing of the submission rate, publishing in OEM remains very competitive, with only 15% of original research papers accepted in 2012. This level of competition unfortunately requires us to decline many interesting, well written papers on a wide range of topics. As highlighted a year ago, OEM is truly a global journal.1 In 2012 this trend continued and, while authors in the USA and the UK contributed the majority of papers, we also received many submissions from the Netherlands, Canada, Australia, France, Italy, Spain, Finland and, importantly, China. The appearance of China among the countries contributing most actively to the journal is a new development, but is consistent with current trends in scientific publishing.2 While submissions are still …
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.021 |
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".