MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2960914360 · doi:10.1188/19.onf.395-396

The Editing Process—From the Personal to the Professional

2019· editorial· en· W2960914360 on OpenAlexaff
Anne Katz

Bibliographic record

VenueOncology nursing forum · 2019
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt, Technology, and Culture
Canadian institutionsCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProcess (computing)Personal narrativeMedical educationNursingLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Along with my colleagues, I presented a number of sessions at the 2019 Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) Congress on publishing and how it contributes to career advancement and professional fulfillment. Ellen Carr, RN, MSN, AOCN®, editor of the Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing, Leslie McGee, MA, senior editorial manager at ONS, and I talked about various aspects of the publishing process and answered questions from enthusiastic audience members, many of whom had not published before. As we described the process of writing a manuscript, following the instructions for authors, and eventually finding a home for the work, I thought about the important role that editing plays.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.230
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.230
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0200.008
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.022

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOncology nursing forumSame topicArt, Technology, and CultureFrench-language works237,207