Bibliographic record
Abstract
Review of European Studies wishes to acknowledge the following individuals for their assistance with peer review of manuscripts for this issue. Their help and contributions in maintaining the quality of the journal are greatly appreciated.Review of European Studies is recruiting reviewers for the journal. If you are interested in becoming a reviewer, we welcome you to join us. Please find the application form and details at http://recruitment.ccsenet.org and e-mail the completed application form to res@ccsenet.org.Reviewers for Volume 10, Number 3Ana Souto, Nottingham Trent University, UKAni Derderian, WSU, USADavide Arcidiacono, University “Cattolica Sacro Cuore” Milan, ItalyEfstathios Stefos, University of the Aegean, GreeceEvangelos Bourelos, Institute of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, SWEDENIndrajit Goswami, INFO Institute of Engineering, IndiaJohnnie Woodard, Independent Scholar, USAKatja Eman, University of Maribor, SloveniaMeenal Tula, University of Hyderabad, IndiaMehdi Ghasemi, University of Turku, FinlandRickey Ray, Northeast State Community College, USAZining Yang, La Sierra University & Claremont Graduate University, USA
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.064 | 0.571 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.091 | 0.047 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".