MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Editorial and Retrospective 2008

2008· editorial· en· W2917915705 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Loren H. Rieseberg, Harry Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Ecology · 2008
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublicationEcologyPublishingImpact factorBiologyReceiptEvolutionary ecologyComputer scienceWorld Wide WebPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We are pleased to report that Molecular Ecology continues to expand in size and impact.When we wrote this editorial, we were on track to publish 5300 pages in 2007, which represents a greater than 10% increase over the last year and a greater than 50% increase over the past 5 years.This increase in page numbers has been accompanied by an expansion in the number of issues from 12 to 24, as well as an increase in impact factor from 3.01 in 2002 to 4.83 in 2006 (Fig. 1).Molecular Ecology now ranks sixth in impact factor among the 114 journals listed in ISI's Ecology category in 2006, and second among ecology journals that publish primary research results.Despite changes in our editorial and production staff, publication times at Molecular Ecology continue to be excellent.The time from manuscript receipt to an editorial decision averages 49 days.Our production staff moves accepted manuscripts to Online Early publication in 39-40 days, with the print version appearing approximately 20 days later.We thank journal secretaries, Elinor Smith and Simmoné Fellowes, and production editor, Gillian Carmichael, for their efforts in ensuring that manuscripts are efficiently processed, reviewed, and published.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1140.062

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.209 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular EcologySame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207