Building on Discplinary Superiority,and Forging a Famous Column and Periodical——A Review of the "Anthropology Research" Column in the Journal of Guangxi University for Nationalities on the Occasion of Its 15th Anniversary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anthropology Research has been a column in the Journal of Guangxi University for Nationalities(Philosophy and Social Science Edition) since 1995 and it is based on our superiority in this discipline.Over the past 15 years,a total of 1016 articles have been published,the authors of which are from 15 countries and regions including the United States,Britain,Japan,Canada,Australia,the Netherlands,New Zealand,India,Korea,Vietnam,Taiwan,China and Hong Kong as well as China's mainland.In 2010,there were 4040 subscribers distributed in 27 countries and regions,with individual readers living in 30 different countries and regions.The Anthropology Research Column in the Journal of Guangxi University for Nationalities has become the spotlight of anthropological studies in China as well as a platform facilitating academic exchanges and displaying academic achievements for the international academia.
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 | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".