MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4238593811 · doi:10.1097/jwh.0000000000000114

Teamwork

2018· article· en· W4238593811 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cynthia M. Chiarello

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Womenʼs Health Physical Therapy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy-related medical research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTeamworkQuality (philosophy)Medical educationPublic relationsPsychologyMedicinePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We came together in the middle of the summer from all parts of the country to collaborate on our common purpose, the Journal of Women's Health Physical Therapy (JWHPT). We share a desire to make JWHPT more approachable for both researchers and clinicians. Ultimately, we want JWHPT to be the go-to place for the most relevant information on all aspects of a woman's health as it pertains to physical therapy. I am describing JWHPT's second annual strategic planning meeting and am eager to share with you all that the editors accomplished. Most importantly, while there is great interest in pelvic health in general, we are not “throwing-the-baby-out-with-the-bath-water” and will continue to provide readers with a wide range of topics. We encourage researchers to submit manuscripts on any aspect of women's health as well as abdominal-pelvic physical therapy. Last year at our planning meeting, the editors focused on our major objective, to clarify and streamline JWHPT's information for authors. This year we concentrated on our reviewers. We implemented procedures to make their job of peer-review easier while at the same time upholding quality. We looked at ways to invite more qualified researchers to become reviewers as well as ways to inspire interested novices to give it a try by introducing education and mentoring. Personally, I have always found reviewing manuscripts to be a rewarding experience, with the hidden advantage of learning much more than I would have expected. Finally, we planned “Reject or correct? A guide to effective feedback on the road to publication,” our workshop session at CSM 2019. The JWHPT editors encourage authors and reviewers to attend. We are eager to meet you and discuss your projects. This issue contains an interesting mix of articles from research groups in 3 countries. Dr Wasserman's group investigated soft tissue mobilization for cesarean scar intervention. Dr Dufour explores clinical decision-making for pelvic girdle pain in Canadian clinical practice. Dr Deering and colleagues examine the fatigability of the lumbopelvic stabilizing muscles in postpartum women. Dr Simonds et al studied postpartum depression, pelvic girdle pain, and disability. Dr Ogwumik presents musculoskeletal issues in Nigerian female athletes. Dr Dockter's group enlightens us regarding the decision to specialize in women's health. You may have already seen some of these articles as JWHPT now offers Published Online First, which gives readers the ability to find articles electronically before they appear in the published issue. To receive notifications as articles become available, click this link https://journals.lww.com/jwhpt/toc/onlinefirst to enroll. Finally, this issue contains our heart-felt thanks to our reviewers who represent the very best in scholarship and service to the profession. I am so proud of all that we have been able to achieve as a group and promise that we will continue to join forces to bring you innovative, relevant evidence to benefit your practice. My thanks to the Section on Women's Health for their support, Wolters Kluwer our publisher and host, and of course my editors: Mary Dockter, Senior Editor; Associate Editors, Karen Abrahams, Patty Nelson, Becca Reisch, and Tracy Spitznagle; and Book Editor, Rebecca Stephenson. In the words of Hellen Keller, “Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much.” —Cynthia M. Chiarello, PT, PhD 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.396 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Womenʼs Health Physical TherapySame topicPregnancy-related medical researchFrench-language works237,207