Bibliographic record
Abstract
Specifically, the week is 27 January–2 February 2018, 3 days before this Editorial is due and 2 days before the Super Bowl. The January issue was published 2 weeks ago and the web activity has returned to normal. The AAPM completed 1 year with Wiley last 31 December 2017 and with one more month completed, it seems right to take a measure of our activity. That week we had visits from 14 129 unique IP addresses. Consider there are about 25 000 active medical physicists with clinical duties in the world; probably up to one quarter of these physicists visit the JACMP each week. Most of the others are likely either professionals or members of the public looking for technical information about radiology and radiation oncology physics practice. Also, we note that during that period, 6224 JACMP articles were downloaded. How do our users get to the JACMP web site? These are the top sites that refer our users: This is not surprising, but the fact that the general search engines drive many visitors to the website is encouraging. One of the functions of the JACMP is worldwide outreach for the AAPM. By offering clinical articles without a paywall, all clinical medical physicists and all patients, who are imaged or receive radiation therapy, directly and immediately benefit from JACMP scholarly investigations. In turn, our worldwide users are invited to investigate the many benefits that can only be had with AAPM membership. The AAPM Practice Guidelines have always been popular downloads. There are many Canadian Organization of Medical Physicists (COMP) reports the JACMP will be publishing over the next several months; we expected these documents to be quite popular as well. The United States now represents slightly less than one-third of JACMP web activity. JACMP submissions and published articles follow about the same geographic percentages as its web activity. About half of JACMP users are English speaking, and half come from non-English speaking countries. Consider what the AAPM has to offer the medical physicists of the world. There is a massive amount of published scholarship and technical reports within the AAPM archives dealing not only with clinical medical physics but also with the science, education, administration and management/professional science of medical physics. There is no other comparable archive anywhere that matches this history and breadth of information. Clinical physicists need not reinvent the wheel as they seek to establish clinical physics practice in the nations of the world. So, I suggest to all JACMP users everywhere that AAPM membership is a next logical step as you realize your calling and your life's work. Finally, this past week the JACMP was challenged with a breach of publishing ethics. Wiley, the Associate Editor and I answered this challenge, but it raises this point: Membership in the AAPM requires the highest level of commitment to ethical behavior. AAPM documents on ethical behavior and practice are available on line. Before you apply for AAPM Membership, you should review these documents and commit yourself to their ethical requirements. You should do this because only by subscribing to ethics in professional behavior will we together realize the promise of a bright future for our profession. You can find relevant AAPM policies on ethics here: https://www.aapm.org/medical_physicist/ethics.asp https://www.aapm.org/org/policies/details.asp?id=260&type=PP¤t=true You may find the AAPM categories of membership, benefits, and the process for application here: https://www.aapm.org/memb/?tab=3#MemberAppPanel https://www.aapm.org/memb/?tab=1 https://www.aapm.org/memb/prospect/apply.asp So, let this be the day you align yourself with your calling and its ethical requirements. If it seems compelling to you, we invite you to become a member of the AAPM. I thank Associate Editors-in-Chief Timothy Solberg and Per Halvorsen for their valuable and perceptive comments.
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 | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".