Turning thirty: evolution but not revolution at the<i>ERJ</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The European Respiratory Journal was officially born in 1988 when the European Journal of Respiratory Diseases was merged with the Bulletin Européen de Physiopathologie Respiratoire . This was 2 years before the European Respiratory Society was founded (and 2 years before the worldwide web!). Peter Howard was one of the driving forces for the merger and he expressed in a report from 1986 that “… it will soon be possible to use a microcomputer to put the scientific papers on a floppy disc, which can be inserted into the back of a printing machine to produce perfect print…” [1]. Just imagine how the scientific world has changed in the 30 years since the first edition of the ERJ . “Papers on a floppy disk” may cause nostalgic feelings to the older editors, authors and readers of the journal, but probably sounds ancient to the younger ones. The new chief editor team outlines how they’ll continue the journal’s great journey, started by the previous leaders
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 | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.008 |
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".