Bibliographic record
Abstract
This short editorial is to alert readers and authors of both the Soil Use and Management and European Journal of Soil Science, and members of the British Society of Soil Science (BSSS) about a survey to obtain your views about our Journals. The world of publication is changing rapidly at present. We need to adapt to these changes and at the same time ensure that we offer the soil science community the specific services that they perceive are important to them. To improve the way that the Journals will operate in the future, we require your feedback on how best we can serve you. We want to know how you prefer to read the Journals – hardcopy or online, what kind of papers or other material you would like to see included and how important open access is likely to be to you. The survey has been compiled by the Editors-in-Chief of the two Journals, Council members of the BSSS and staff at Wiley. It will help us all to focus on what matters to the community of authors, readers and members. The survey is only available online and takes just a short time to complete. We intend to summarize the results at the Annual Meeting of the BSSS in London on 26th November 2015 and in a short editorial in the two Journals. We hope to reach as many people as possible through e-mail but you can go straight to the survey now – the URL is: http://www.soils.org.uk/journal-survey2015. As part of the response to the increased interest in open access publications, Wiley is introducing a Pilot project, initially for 12 months, that will result in reviewers of papers for SUM or EJSS being offered a 10% discount against the publication charge for an open access paper in these journals. ‘Thank you’ letters to reviewers will include an invitation to complete an OnlineOpen order form at http://authorservices.wiley.com/bauthor/onlineopen_order.asp, when their next paper has been accepted for publication. The 10% discount must be redeemed within 12 months of receipt. At present, the discount is not cumulative, nor can it be combined with any other discount. The Journal is very pleased to participate in the project, and we are grateful to Wiley for the invitation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".