Bibliographic record
Abstract
How time flies! The New Year will bring a milestone birthday for the IWJ, that is its tenth year of existence. During the life of the IWJ, we have grown to be the leading clinical research resource on an International basis. Much has been achieved during this time but we must start by thanking both our readership and our strategic partners. Without both we would not have survived and reached this significant milestone. Our progress was slow but measured achieving Medline listing followed several years later (a time restricted process) we obtained our first Impact Factor which is on the rise as the importance of our research is recognized and validated. Our growth saw a significant page increase for each of the four editions, quickly into the IWJ's existence. Following a very successful partnership with the World Union of Wound Healing Societies for the third Meeting in Toronto in 2008 the IWJ recognized the need to increase not only the page count but also the number of editions per year, moving from four to six. All in all it has been an exciting and worthy journey serving our readership and delivering a high quality resource to those dealing with wounds across the world. So what will 2013 and beyond deliver from IWJ. Our production pipeline is healthy and it is our promise to live up to a short submission to publication timeline. As such 2013 will see the emergence of an online only publication issue once per year to supplement our print editions. This will allow authors to publish more quickly if they so chose – online publication allows citation and records the referencing of said citations. As the Editorial team we promise the continued growth of this valuable resource, driving our IF higher while ensuring a fair and rapid review process allowing a short turn around for the valuable research and comment coming from those involved in wounds globally.
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 | 0.016 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.034 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.201 | 0.160 |
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".