International Psychogeriatrics to increase publication frequency to six issues per annum in 2007
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It gives us great pleasure to announce that in 2007 and beyond International Psychogeriatrics will appear six times each year in February, April, June, August, October and December. In 2007 each issue will comprise 176 pages, and at least one supplement (to contain the abstracts for the Thirteenth Congress of the International Psychogeriatric Association (IPA)) will be published as well. This increase in publication frequency and annual number of published pages will cut the time between the online publication of accepted manuscripts as “forthcoming articles” at our website www.journals.cambridge.org/jid_IPG and their appearance in a specific issue of the journal, and also will permit the further development of innovations such as the popular “for debate” series (e.g. Ames et al., 2005) which was initiated last year. This development represents a vote of confidence in the future of the journal by both its parent association, IPA, and its publisher, Cambridge University Press, and, in consequence, IPA members and other journal subscribers will now derive markedly increased value from their subscriptions, as the number of journal pages published annually will have risen from 446 in 2002 and 2003 to 1056 in 2007, coincident with a marked improvement in the timeliness of the journal's publication dates (Ames, 2006). The number of pages to be published each year will be reviewed every 12 months, and we hope that a continuation of the recent steady rise in both number and quality of manuscript submissions (Ames, 2006) will permit further growth of the journal in future. Meanwhile, we encourage the 30% or more of subscribers who have not yet activated their online subscriptions to do so by registering at the Cambridge University Press website as advised in letters sent out by the Press at the start of August. Those subscribers who are entitled to receive hard copies of the journal will not lose this entitlement by activating their online subscriptions, and online registration brings with it the considerable advantages of early access to accepted articles and the ability to obtain pdf copies of journal 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 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 | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.304 | 0.414 |
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".