Bibliographic record
Abstract
Like the athletes we treat, the Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine (CJSM) is on the move. In its short life, CJSM has sought to bring to its readers an array of high-quality articles of direct and distinct clinical relevance. The founders of this publication recognized that the burgeoning discipline of sport medicine required a journal that married the interests of the practicing clinician with those of the clinical scientist or researcher in a periodical that was shaped by high standards of scholarship and a commitment to evidence-based medicine. We have, if we may be permitted a moment of immodesty, succeeded rather well. It is now apparent that CJSM is the leading journal of clinical sport medicine in the world. The most recent rankings of Science Citation Index impact factors reveal that our journal is the most highly ranked of its type—an accomplishment that is all the more remarkable given our youth. The impact factor gives an indication of the impact a journal is having in its field, as evidenced by the number of times the journal is cited in a year. CJSM now ranks 13th out of 59 publications in the sport sciences category, despite being the second youngest journal (as measured by cited half-life). Our success is due in no small part to the vision of the founding societies, the foresight of the founding editor, and an unswerving commitment to the needs of clinicians on the part of authors, reviewers, and editors. That CJSM is the publication of five professional societies on two continents speaks to the international reach of our publication. The journal continues to evolve. Systematic reviews of important clinical topics will be an increasingly common feature; abstracts of papers presented at the societies' scientific conferences will appear following a process of peer review; the journal will become accessible electronically by the second quarter of this year; and special, topical supplements will be published on an annual basis. All of which, we hope, will add further value to what we trust is a valued resource. CJSM has always had the goal of providing authoritative, scientific information of relevance to the clinician. Still, we recognize that there are many problems that the clinician faces where science cannot provide the answer. This year, we will be adding a practical management section that offers the opinion of experts on the treatment of common sport medicine problems. The aim of this new section will be to provide the clinician with the best available management strategies where hard scientific evidence may be lacking. In the months ahead we hope to add another dimension to CJSM by regularly publishing a variety of editorials. Our editorials may reflect comment or criticism stimulated by articles appearing in the body of the journal. More provocatively, we hope to publish perspectives and viewpoints on contemporary and controversial matters of distinct interest to the sport medicine practitioner and relevant to the world of sport, medicine, and society at large. We will welcome submissions as well as invite them, and hope that the editorial pages will soon become a site of learned comment, unbridled opinion, and literary flair! We are also aware of the photographic talents of many of our colleagues, and signal in this issue that we will be publishing black and white photographs submitted by our readers in the many areas of otherwise white space that appear in each volume. Predictably, photographs of sport and physical activity are obvious choices for publication but we welcome any images that you feel would have appeal for our readers. We have taken the liberty of offering the first photograph, which depicts the speed and fluid movement of a group of sprinters... poetry in motion. With these additions we hope that the journal will provide even more for your intellectual, verbal, and visual consideration. FIGUREFigure: Photo by W. Meeuwisse © 2000
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".