Departing Thoughts from IJTMB’s Practice & Education Section Editor: Critical Inquiry, Dichotomy vs. Continuum, and Improving TMB Discourse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For the past three years, I have had the great privilege of serving as Editor of first the Practice Section alone and then also the Education Section of the International Journal of Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork (IJTMB), a journal unique in its mission to link the complementary components of research, education, and practice for the therapeutic massage and bodywork (TMB) field. IJTMB’s mission is what drew me to the role of editor. My career and scholarly work includes, or has included, each component. Along the way, I have focused a lot of my energy and voice to encourage other TMB professionals to become more knowledgeable about, and involved in, the TMB component that seems to get the least “love”: research.(1–4) I have so enjoyed facilitating the important contributions of others from the TMB field as they have submitted to, and published in, IJTMB during my tenure. By going through the process of scientific dialogue, these contributors have navigated a challenging yet rewarding journey; congratulations and “thank you” to all involved: authors, mentors, reviewers, and fellow editors!
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 | 0.029 | 0.145 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.035 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".