MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

<i>Emergency Medicine</i> in the new millennium: ‘Quo vadis’?

2000· article· en· W2145541707 on OpenAlex
Anthony Brown

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEmergency Medicine · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatus quoEditorial boardPublic relationsMedicinePolitical scienceWork (physics)Library scienceEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2000 has been challenging, exciting and rewarding to be at the helm of this Journal, now in its 12th year of publication. Although purists may still be awaiting 1 January 2001, I consider that Emergency Medicine has already made a seamless entrance into the new millennium with the development of important initiatives, including the formation of a Journal Executive. This includes an Editor-in-Chief, Editor and Assistant Editors for Australia and New Zealand, who now drive forward the day-to-day policy, planning and strategic issues to enhance the Journal. An expanded International Editorial Board with representatives from Hong Kong, South Africa, the United Kingdom, Canada and the USA reflect the growing global importance of emergency medicine, and assures a cross-cultural balance within the Journal’s structure. Close liaison with them and the Australasian members of the Editorial Board has consolidated a strength of purpose, and I thank everyone for their support over the year. This year has also seen an expansion of the cohort of Section Editors, who now coordinate the peer review process in no less than 15 different areas, from original research, clinical management consensus, review articles and technology to ethics, toxicology, paediatric emergencies, and education and training. Other areas covered include professional issues and perspectives that will allow the Journal to showcase pithy, practical experience-based articles and the more personal, private, sometimes difficult experiences that arise at work or at home, that inevitably impact on our delivery of emergency care or our perceived role in this process. The broadening of the scope and aims and deliberate international thrust of the Journal has seen a significant increase in Australasian and overseas papers, both commissioned and unsolicited. Importantly, there has been a 50% increase in the number of original research papers published, strengthening the overall scientific content of Emergency Medicine. The average time from receipt of an article to final acceptance has dropped to 7 weeks, which is encouraging for those authors still awaiting their names in print. This really is a tribute to the excellence of the refereeing/review process, which continues to be unblinded to both authors’ names and referees’ identity. There is ongoing debate about the purpose and efficacy of peer review and whether it protects the reader from inferior papers and unreliable research or acts to preserve the authors’ integrity! What is not disputed is that the best reviews combine a critical eye with a positive, creative attitude aimed at improving manuscripts and educating fellow researchers by explicitly discussing the originality, importance, design and interpretation of a study, in detail and with references from within and outside the manuscript.1 This idealistic, often apparently thankless, task is time-consuming, but does not go unheeded. Therefore, I also extend my sincere thanks to the Section Editors and referees for their hard work, energy and enthusiasm, that is integral to the ever-improving quality of the Journal (see list of referees on page 367). Emergency Medicine is now enjoying the fruits of its strong relationship with our publisher Blackwell Science Asia. This has blossomed into a creative nexus, that is focused on maximizing the Journal’s potential by pursuing inclusion in abstracting and indexing services, such as the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Science Citation Index, among others. This will allow an essential systematic and objective means of determining the relative importance of papers in Emergency Medicine, by monitoring the impact factor rating, particularly as changes and new imperatives are introduced into the Journal. In addition, Blackwell Science, as a leader in the development of on-line publishing, makes Emergency Medicine available electronically worldwide in a user-friendly format through Blackwell Science Synergy. This gives access to abstracts, full-text articles either as HTML files or reprints as PDF files, ‘hot-link’ cross-referencing to other Blackwell Science journals, electronic linkage of references to Medline™ abstracts, key word searches and authors’ publication history searches. Blackwell Science is also among 17 major publishing organizations developing an electronic reference-linking service among thousands of journals across millions of articles, christened Crossref in December 1999. I am indebted to the professionalism, high quality and vision shown by Blackwell Science Asia staff, and thank you all. It is quite clear that rapid changes in the electronic provision of information and communication services offer exciting prosects in the knowledge that Colleges, libraries, hospitals, surgeries and private homes alike may now be linked by common communications systems. This will empower some and expose others, by making public medical data, down to and including intricate medical nuances, hitherto known only to a privileged few. Clinicians and researchers alike must be able to comfortably access this plethora of information, dictating that information technology skills are now added to their repertoire of essential clinical skills.2 Finally, I am fortunate to have the indispensable and unfailing support from the Production Manager Jennifer Freeman and Production Assistant Gabrielle Whiting, who remain the backbone of Emergency Medicine, and are a joy to work with. I believe the product of everyone’s hard work is something to look forward to. Each new issue that arrives aims to educate, inform, enlighten and perhaps entertain you in your busy schedules. Whether clinician, researcher, administrator, educator, student or expert, not only in the Asia–Pacific region, but in Europe and North America, the Journal should join us all together in our common bond as practitioners of emergency medicine.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.472
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1850.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.296 · 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