MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Thomson Reuters Journal Selection Process

2009· article· en· W2769097657 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
James Testa

Bibliographic record

VenueTransnational Corporation Review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia Studies and Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelection (genetic algorithm)Process (computing)EconomicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper includes a detailed description of the Thomson Reuters Journal Selection Process, which evaluates many criteria, including timeliness of publication, adherence to international editorial conventions, and English language bibliographic information. Thomson Reuters also examines a journal's editorial content and the international diversity of it authors and editors. Citation analysis is carried out using Thomson Reuters data to determine a journal's citation history and/or the citation history of its authors and 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.054
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.257
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0540.257
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0250.022
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.046

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations157
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueTransnational Corporation ReviewSame topicMedia Studies and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207