Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the Editorial Office Michael Stingl, Administrative Editor This past year CJP received 282 papers, with an acceptance rate of 6.6%. Most papers are sent anonymously to two expert external referees. When papers are sent to referees, the Journal aims at a six month response time for the author. For papers not sent for external review, the Journal aims at a three month response time for authors. All papers are given an initial anonymous review in the editorial office. Promising papers are sent to an editor in their area, who may then send them (anonymously) to two referees. Papers with two strong referees' reports and the endorsement of the editor are sent to the editorial board as a whole, still anonymously, for discussion and a vote on acceptance. The current backlog of accepted papers is currently about six months. Because of the large number of papers it receives, CJP is normally able to consider papers of no longer than 10,000 words. Longer papers may be returned to authors with a suggestion to shorten them or to submit them elsewhere. CJP is now available through a variety of electronic aggregators, some for profit and some not for profit. In terms of revenue, it matters greatly to the Journal how we are accessed electronically through libraries, with nonprofit aggregators like Project Muse and JSTOR offering us the best revenue sharing arrangements. In the future, it is our view that scholars and libraries will need to pay more attention to how they are receiving and using journals in electronic form, particularly independent journals like CJP. CJP is also available at its own website, on an open access model, but with a twenty-four month embargo on current content to protect our revenues from other sources: http://www.canadianjournalofphilosophy.com Almost all authors are now submitting their papers electronically. This enables us to process papers more quickly, within the constraints mentioned above. Papers should be sent to Marda Schindeler, the Journal's Executive Secretary, at cjp@uleth.ca, in either Word or WordPerfect (native and RFT file format), and formatted according to the Journal's directions for authors. [End Page iv] Copyright © 2010 Canadian Journal of Philosophy
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 | 0.006 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.438 | 0.508 |
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".