Bibliographic record
Abstract
Addiction has long taken an interest in how research in its specialist field of interest is made to happen. It has also given attention to the related questions of how the quality and integrity of that research is to be enhanced. An example of the commitment to that line of thinking includes the Journal Interview series in which Addiction invites distinguished researchers to give an account of their careers, and identify the shaping influences. The first contribution to that series was published in 1979 with D. L. Davies 1, while the next will be interview no. 89 with William Miller as the subject 2. The individual scientist is always the actor at the centre of the research play, but there is also a need to examine various aspects of infrastructure. To that end Addiction has taken a close interest in establishing collaboration between specialist journals in its field of interest and mechanisms of scientific dissemination, with a working collaboration enjoyed with the International Society of Addiction Journal Editors (ISAJE). Addiction is a signatory to the Farmington Consensus 3. A forthcoming series on ‘Vested interests in addiction research and policy’ will explore important matters relating to the integrity of the science base—an issue to which Addiction has given repeated attentions 4. Much addiction research has for many years been the product of specialised research centres rather than the contribution of stand alone scientists, and it is the specialist centres, in collaboration often with the national funding agencies, which today assert leadership, set agendas, and help determine standards. It is therefore logical that Addiction, as part of its effort to explore how the science is made, should be seen to encourage exploration of how these centres function. The journal first published a Research Centres series with a launch in 1987 and with a total of 18 contributions on that occasion. An introductory editorial at that time sought to put some questions around the creation and functioning of these types of institutions within a historical perspective: the founding role of Yale and of the Addiction Research Foundation of Toronto cannot be doubted 5. At the same time the series attempted to put the specialist addiction enterprise within a general science policy frame—how with inevitably limited resources does society best organise science to get value for money? Returning to the same topic twenty years further along the road, the journal has decided to give its new Centres series the subtitle ‘The Nurturing of Creativity’. That phrasing is purposeful, and we see as the core question (and key challenge), how the spark of true creativity in addiction science is to be nurtured. How is a micro-culture favourable to creativity to be brought into being in a particular office block? Contributors to this series will be asked to reflect very closely on that question and on the mechanisms which are likely to contribute to fulfilment of the ambition. What, for instance, is the role of personal leadership, but also how is a creative collegiate atmosphere built? How do staff meetings best support fresh thinking or, at a minimum, not crush such ambition? How does a centre look after and develop the careers of its junior staff? What is conversation like at coffee time? Thomas Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions6 distinguished between ‘normal’ science and science which challenged paradigms. The intention of this series will in part be to force questions around how, in the next couple of decades, the scientific community may create addiction science which dares shape new paradigms. The journal is grateful to researchers who have very kindly agreed to contribute to the new research series, and to Emmanuel Kuntsche and his colleagues for giving it a good start 7. If there are other research centres anywhere in the world that would like to be added to the list, please be sure to let Addiction know.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".