MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214497161 · doi:10.1002/emp2.12685

Diversity, equity and inclusion directions of JACEP Open

2022· article· en· W4214497161 on OpenAlexaff
Sing‐Yi Feng, Elizabeth Donnelly, J.G. March

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians Open · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiversity and Career in Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)PublishingDiversity (politics)Ethnic groupEquity (law)Public relationsGlobeWorkforceCreativityPolitical scienceSociologyMedical educationLibrary sciencePsychologyMedicineSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are important in all aspects of health care and academia, but especially in biomedical publishing. JACEP Open is committed to promoting DEI efforts by widening the diversity of its editors, peer reviewers, and authors to better reflect our readers around the globe. We intend to do this by increasing the transparency of our recruitment, retainment, and review processes. Why are diversity, equity, and inclusion important? DEI in scientific thought is critical for continuing creativity and innovation. Medical research needs to take advantage of a diverse workforce to address the various challenges and problems of the modern medical system for the betterment of the health of our fellow human beings. Considerations for DEI are multifaceted and involve active attention to groups that are underrepresented in academic publishing due to gender, ethnicity, and race as well as geography.1, 2 These groups are also underrepresented among principal investigators in grant applications and awards that may present additional barriers to publication.3 It is time to actively challenge these biases because research that is conducted by diverse teams is cited more often and more likely to be published in prestigious journals.4, 5 We intend that our DEI practices not only be focused on our staff, editorial board, and reviewers but also promote inclusivity across the entire publication process. We plan to continue our current DEI practices such as blinding our reviewers to the names and institutions of the authors as well as continuing to actively and purposively recruiting a more diverse peer reviewer and editorial pool. Because JACEP Open has an international scope and focus, we hope to increase our visibility among our international readers and to recruit more international authors. We also plan to survey the demographics of our editors, reviewers, and authors. We hope that the entire scientific and medical publishing will join our call to action. Attention to DEI is critical to giving equal voice to all stakeholders and ensuring that the science reflects society. Authors: DEI Task Force on behalf of the entire JACEP Open Editorial Board

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0050.126
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians OpenSame topicDiversity and Career in MedicineFrench-language works237,207