Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is the last editorial for 2003 and it marks the beginning of a few changes in style and format of JCN, which will become apparent in 2004.The most obvious change will be to the cover of the journal which will change colour to a more striking shade of blue -a superficial change, admittedly -and a more open and contemporary style of formatting within the papers.Changes of more substance will include the structuring of abstracts to make clear what the papers are contributing to their fields, and specifically, their relevance to clinical practice.While the main features of JCN will remain, we hope to generate more comment on papers and to regenerate the Clinical Notes section, thus providing for articles on clinical practice which do not necessarily follow the standard original research or review format.The Guidelines for Contributors have been revised to accommodate these changes and the Aims and Scope of JCN have been updated to clarify the purpose and focus of the journal.By the time of publication of the first issue of 2004 there will be some changes to the Editorial Board to ensure that JCN continues to be represented by, and gain the expertise of, the best people in nursing across the world.In addition, to represent the growing international content and readership of JCN, we have succeeded in appointing Assistant Editors for North America and the Southern Hemisphere.
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 | 0.005 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.223 | 0.133 |
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".