Bibliographic record
Abstract
Richard M. Adanu, MBChB, MPH, FGCS, FWACS Editor, IJGO October is a special month for the International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology (FIGO) because it is the month of our World Congress. The Editorial Board and the editorial staff of the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics (IJGO) warmly welcome our readers to Vancouver for the Congress. The IJGO continues to be one of the leading journals in women's health because of your continued contribution to the journal through submission of manuscripts and provision of high-quality reviews of these manuscripts. In collaboration with the incoming FIGO President Prof C.N. Purandare, the IJGO has published the 2015 World Report on Women's Health, which will be available at the Congress and serves to highlight the aspects of women's health where FIGO is concentrating its efforts. In the journal's role as the official mouthpiece of FIGO, the October issue of the IJGO contains the FIGO Consensus Guidelines for Intrapartum Fetal Monitoring. These guidelines cover the theory and practice of intrapartum fetal monitoring. They address the physiology of fetal oxygenation and emphasize the goals of fetal monitoring, in addition to explaining how to use different technologies, ranging from intermittent auscultation to cardiotocography and other adjunctive technologies. The FIGO guidelines are useful for clinical practice especially in member countries that do not have regularly published local documents to set benchmarks. The other papers appearing in the issue of the journal show that the IJGO continues to be committed to publishing reports that will serve to improve the clinical practice of FIGO members. The journal is currently very interested in publishing review articles on clinical practice, health system issues relating to maternal and women's health, and social aspects of women's reproductive health. We have had at least one review in eight of our issues in 2015. These review articles, like the FIGO guidelines, serve to provide our readers with comprehensive information on a particular subject. We encourage you all to submit interesting review articles on contemporary subjects to the IJGO and to see the journal as a source of excellent reviews. The countries of origin of the papers in this month's issue bring out our continued commitment to being an international journal. We have papers from almost every continent in the world, which is a regular feature of all IJGO issues. The IJGO provides a window into the practice of obstetrics and gynecology all over the world and is the one place where a reader can quickly get to know the topics of interest in different countries. We encourage submissions from countries that are not normally represented in international peer-reviewed journals; we see the review and publication of such manuscripts as our contribution to the development of new researchers in our field. In the past year, the IJGO has become more active on social media. We regularly promote our news and latest papers on Twitter (@IJGOLive). Furthermore, one paper from each issue is selected to be the Editor's Choice and is promoted by the IJGO through social media and on our pages of the FIGO website (http://www.figo.org/international-journal-gynecology-obstetrics). We encourage our readers to find the IJGO online and to contribute to the conversations sparked by the papers that we publish. At the 2015 FIGO Congress, the IJGO is running two author workshops in collaboration with the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Obstetrics & Gynecology (The Green Journal), and the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada. The author workshops have been designed to provide an insight into all the behind-the-scenes activities that go into getting a paper published. We hope to prepare new researchers for the submission of their papers to our journals and to communicate to all potential authors what journal editors and reviewers are looking for in a manuscript. Additionally, there will be plenty of time for editors to answer any questions that participants have about how to get published. The IJGO will also have a booth in the Congress Exhibition Hall, where editorial staff and board members will be available to answer questions concerning the journal. Visitors to the booth will also have the opportunity to become familiar with other FIGO publications and activities. With the continued support of all our readers, we are convinced that the IJGO has a very bright future ahead and we wish you all an enjoyable time in Vancouver.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.190 | 0.101 |
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".