MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096516980 · doi:10.1017/s1041610206004285

International Psychogeriatrics to increase publication frequency to six issues per annum in 2007

2006· article· en· W2096516980 on OpenAlexaff
David Ames, John T. O’Brien

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Psychogeriatrics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsInternational Development Research Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLibrary sciencePleasureValue (mathematics)Political scienceHistoryPsychologyMedicineComputer scienceStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.399 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational PsychogeriatricsSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207