Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preface Editors are central to any publishing project; they endeavour to reconcile the needs of the author, the reader and the publishing client. Editors look at the publication as a whole as well as at the detail. They ensure that the focus, structure, language, style and format of a publication suit its purpose and readership, and prepare the final copy to a standard of quality suitable for the publication. Australian Standards for Editing Practice covers the knowledge and skills expected of experienced editors, although editors' workplace responsibilities and the requirements of particular projects will determine the relevance of each standard. Editors also recognise when they need to find out and apply specialised knowledge from other sources or professions. These standards have been developed for editors to use: as a basis for judging the comprehensiveness of their own knowledge and skills when promoting themselves and the editing profession generally. They will also help publishing clients understand the range of services editors provide, and guide educational institutions in developing editing courses. These standards were devised by the Standards Working Group of the Council of Australian Societies of Editors (CASE), approved by the members of all Australian societies of editors, and ratified by CASE. They are to be reviewed at least every three years; please address comments to the closest member society. The working group used the Editors' Association of Canada's Professional Editing Standards as a starting point and the Canberra Society of Editors' Commissioning Checklist as a reference.
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 | 0.013 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.384 | 0.322 |
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".