Bibliographic record
Abstract
With this issue, we warmly welcome the members of the Dutch Association for Pediatric Physical Therapy as subscribers to Pediatric Physical Therapy. According to Janjaap van der Net, PT, PhD, PCS, the President, the Association is celebrating its 25th anniversary. The Dutch Association for Pediatric Physical Therapy is an association with approximately 1100 members. Dr van der Net noted that the Association's policy is to support the scientific development of its members. Currently, pediatric physiotherapists in the Netherlands are qualified and registered as pediatric physiotherapists after a 2-year training program on an advanced master's degree level after completing a BSc (and in the near future an MSc in physical therapy). This development has resulted in pediatric physical therapists following evidence-based practice rules and focusing on the body of knowledge in the scientific literature. Dr. van der Net indicated that the digital subscriptions to Pediatric Physical Therapy represent the next step in facilitating access to a broad range of relevant topics in pediatric physical therapy for our members. I can think of no better issue with which to welcome our Dutch colleagues, as this issue represents an international fest of articles originating in Norway, Denmark, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. This fest is occurring through the good graces of serendipity as this array of articles is the line up of the most recently accepted work submitted to the journal. Clearly, our electronic communication systems that link us closely together are a wonderful gift that we increasingly take for granted. To be able to communicate almost instantaneously with colleagues throughout the world is foundational to the improvement of our profession and to the ongoing development of our journal. I benefit from that ease of communication and routinely call on colleagues around the world to participate as reviewers for Pediatric Physical Therapy. Among those colleagues, quite notably, is esteemed colleague Dr Paul Helders from Utrecht in the Netherlands who serves on our Editorial Board. We are united in our desire to foster practice using the best evidence available regarding our interventions. This journal provides a forum for the exchange of ideas and facilitation of evidence-based practice. We congratulate the Dutch Association on its 25th anniversary and once again welcome our Dutch colleagues. We recognize their high level contributions to this journal and look forward to continue professional collaboration to foster the development of our clinical science. Ann F. Van Sant, PT, PhD, FAPTA Editor-in-Chief
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.874 | 0.891 |
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".