Bibliographic record
Abstract
With this issue it is my great pleasure to introduce three Associate Editors for Theory & Psychology: Huib Looren de Jong, Kareen Ror Malone, and Clare MacMartin. Our gradual expansion over the past decade has ensured a steady flow of manuscripts and, more important, these have covered a variety of topics and papers that warrant the skills and knowledge of multiple editorial hands. Drs. Malone, MacMartin and Looren de Jong bring a strong range of expertise including such domains of knowledge as the philosophy of science and cognitive theory to discourse analysis and critical feminist analysis. All three have contributed to the journal in recent years, both as authors and reviewers, and we are very pleased to have these three strong scholars from North America and Europe take on these positions. The arrival of our Associate Editors marks a certain maturation in the development of the journal and a recognition that there is a diverse and dynamic community that both reads the journal and contributes to its development. We will, as always, continue to rely on the review process, recruiting additional members from the scholarly community to review manuscripts and to rely on our Editorial Board that will continue to be responsible for the greater share of adjudicating manuscripts. We welcome our Associate Editors and look forward to their participation in, and further shaping of, Theory & Psychology. With the changing publishing environment we are also making possible a process of electronic submission procedures. Beginning in 2002 authors may submit manuscripts in electronic or traditional formats. Details of formats and submission procedures are announced in the inside back-cover and are posted on our web page. Authors are encouraged to consult the web page prior to submitting a manuscript electronically (www.psych.ucalgary.ca/ thpsyc/). It is likely that we will move towards an all-electronic system of submissions and review within the next few years. As always I welcome your feedback and comments on these and any other aspects of the journal.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.009 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".