A new editorial team for the <i>European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing</i>: building on successes and mapping new horizons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2002, a new journal was launched: the European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing. Together with the annual congress, today known as EuroHeartCare, the journal aimed to keep cardiovascular nurses up-to-date with the latest developments in science and in practice.1 This was in alignment with the mission of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) at the time of ‘improving the quality of life of the European population by reducing the impact of cardiovascular disease’.2,3 Over the past 20 years, the journal has substantially grown in reach. At the outset, the journal was principally European, but now, it has a clear global reach as testified by the downloads and submissions from all over the world. The journal has also matured beyond being a pure nursing journal. Indeed, the articles that are published in the journal nowadays have a strong interdisciplinary character, which demonstrates that the journal is well established as a go-to resource for multiple disciplines working in health and social care. As a result, the European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing fulfils its aim of helping support healthcare professionals deliver the best care possible to patients with cardiovascular disease.
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 | 0.020 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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".