Bibliographic record
Abstract
I cannot say hello without personally thanking Dr. Geruschat for his priceless contribution as editor in chief of JVIB since 2004. In my estimation, his stamp on the journal has cemented its position as the highly respected professional journal of record for the field of visual impairment and has helped it gain the international reputation that it holds today. One of the many discussions that he and I have had recently, in trying to make this editorial shift a seamless transition, involved our feelings regarding the importance of JVIB's contribution to building a solid base of research evidence for the field. Although the body of research for our field has grown over the years, as professionals, we still do not have the answers to so many practice-related questions that constantly concern us. This fact was brought home to me in a very tangible way a few years ago, when I was asked to contribute to a book chapter focused on highlighting evidence-based best practices for children who are blind or visually impaired, complete with the research supporting each practice. While trying to compile research evidence that would support what I considered to be best practices, I found that I had to eliminate several options, when no research support surfaced. My resulting frustration made me realize how seriously limited our research base is. One of the difficulties we face as researchers is that is it almost impossible to do any large-scale quantitative research with a population that is so extremely heterogeneous. As a field we need to encourage high-quality qualitative research utilizing case studies and single-subject design and perform more longitudinal research, which can be translated into guidance for practitioners. And the journal needs associate editors who feel comfortable working with articles that present this type of research for publication. Toward that end, I am pleased to have Steve LaGrow, from Massey University in New Zealand, with his expertise in single-subject research design, join our other associate editors, Carol Farrenkopf, from the Toronto District School Board, and Maureen Duffy, from Vision-Aware.org. Also, Robert Wall Emerson, from Western Michigan University, has joined the journal as a consulting editor for research. I am excited about joining this team, and I sincerely hope that I can maintain the journal with the same integrity and quality as Dr. Geruschat. As I step into his gargantuan shoes, I welcome readers' thoughts concerning JVIB. You can reach me at . DIANE P. WORMSLEY, PH.D. EDITOR IN CHIEF A Note to Readers: This issue of JVIB marks a transition in leadership from Dr. Duane R. Geruschat to Dr. Diane P. Wormsley as editor in chief of the journal. Dr. Geruschat, who began his role as editor in chief 2005, has had a long association with JVIB. He served two terms as a member of its Editorial Advisory Board--from 1992 to 1997 and again in 2002 to 2004--when he was named associate editor for JVIB. In addition, he was guest editor, along with Dr. Anne Corn, of the 2004 JVIB Special Issue on Low Vision and the guest editor of the 1993 Special Issue on Residential Schools as well. …
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".