Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research & Practice (PHRP) marks the third anniversary of the establishment of the journal in its current form.Building on an impressive 25-year history of the New South Wales (NSW) Public Health Bulletin, PHRP was an ambitious undertaking to create a modern online, open-access journal.Our aim is to publish impactful, peer-reviewed papers and provide an effective vehicle for dialogue and debate between public health thought leaders, researchers, policy makers and practitioners.There is much to be proud of in the progress achieved in these first 3 years.The journal has built a subscriber base from scratch, and more than 2800 subscribers (and rising) receive the journal via our free quarterly newsletter on the date of publication.These subscribers reflect the ambitions of the journal to reach a mix of practitioners, policy makers and researchers (35% of our subscribers are policy makers).Similarly, we have achieved our goal of attracting high-quality papers, often jointly authored by academic researchers and practitioners.Indeed, reflecting the origins of the journal, about 50% of published papers have at least one author from the NSW health system or the Ministry of Health.However, the journal is not only focused on issues of relevance to NSW.Our goal has always been to publish papers that may have local origins, but have national and international significance -and we have good evidence that we are achieving this goal, with several papers being regularly cited, strong altmetrics and good media coverage of individual articles.We now regularly receive papers from across Australia, and increasingly from outside Australia.This is not surprising -although more than half of our readers are from Australia, the rest come from many other countries.For example, the US, UK, Canada and India account for a further 20% of readers.The journal continues to advance.PHRP was accepted as a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in August 2017.COPE exists to help journal editors identify and develop policies or processes that adhere to the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines on publication ethics.This recognition is an important assurance to prospective authors in an era of rampant predatory journals.Other attributes that make the journal attractive to authors include indexing with Medline, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science among others, and our most recent innovation -online early publication.The journal has run several themed issues addressing contemporary topics in public health, ranging from emerging infectious diseases through PHRP celebrates 3 years of supporting public health policy and practice
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 | 0.093 | 0.139 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.031 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.024 |
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".