MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232062677 · doi:10.5539/ijc.v7n2p223

Reviewer Acknowledgements for International Journal of Chemistry, Vol. 7, No. 2

2015· article· en· W4232062677 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Albert John

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Chemistry · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicInorganic and Organometallic Chemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryLibrary scienceEditorial boardClassicsHistoryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

International Journal of Chemistry 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 is greatly appreciated.Many authors, regardless of whether International Journal of Chemistry publishes their work, appreciate the helpful feedback provided by the reviewers. Reviewers for Volume 7, Number 2 Adel F. ShoukryAhmad GaladimaAhmet Ozan GezermanAjeet KumarAna Sanches-SilvaAnshuman MangalumAprajita ChauhanBhargava KarumudiBinod P PandeyChanchal Kumar MalikDebashis MandalDesheng ZhengGreg PetersHo Soon MinIsmail Ab RahmanJalal IsaadJiajue ChaiJuan Giner-CasaresK. Ishara SilvaLei ShenMadduri SrinivasaraoMarianna TorokMichael Rajesh StephenNanda GunawardhanaNejib Hussein MekniOng Siew TengPraveen KumarQun YeR. K. DeyRabia RehmanRajasekhar Reddy NaredlaRizvi SyedRuogu PengSayandev ChatterjeeShu-Ching OuSitaram AcharyaValter Aragão do NascimentoVijay RamalingamWenkai ZhangXianlong WangYu ChenYu HouZhixia LiuZhixin Tian Albert JohnOn behalf of,The Editorial Board of International Journal of ChemistryCanadian Center of Science and Education

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.190
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.190
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0760.049

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of ChemistrySame topicInorganic and Organometallic ChemistryFrench-language works237,207