Reviewer Acknowledgements for Journal of Plant Studies, Vol. 5, No. 2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p><em>Journal of Plant Studies</em> 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.</p><p><em>Journal of Plant Studies</em> 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://www.ccsenet.org/reviewer and e-mail the completed application form to jps@ccsenet.org.</p><p><strong>Reviewers for Volume 5, Number 2</strong></p><p>Adriana F. Sestras, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca, Romania</p><p>Anserd Foster, Kansas State University, United States</p><p>Chang-Jun Liu, Brookhaven National Laboratory, United States</p><p>Denis Charlebois, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, Canada</p><p>Juan K.Q. Solomon, University of Nevada, United States</p><p>Kinga Kostrakiewicz-Gieralt, Institute of Botany, Jagiellonian University, Poland</p><p>Martina Pollastrini, University of Florence, Italy</p><p>Qiuheng Lu, University of Virginia, United States</p><p>Rocío Deanna, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina</p><p>Said Laarabi, University Mohammed V/Ministry of National Education, Morocco</p><p>Santiago Andrés-Sánchez, Universidad de Salamanca, Spain</p><p>Slawomir Borek, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poland</p><p>Vatsavaya Satyanarayana Raju, Kakatiya University Warangal, India</p><p>Xiaomin Wu, Loyola University Chicago, United States</p><p>Youcef Halis, Scientific and Technical Research Centre for Arid Areas (CRSTRA), Algeria</p>
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 | 0.001 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".