MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241912285 · doi:10.1111/imig.12570

Editorial

2019· editorial· es· W4241912285 on OpenAlexaff
Howard Duncan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Migration · 2019
Typeeditorial
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMiddle East and Rwanda Conflicts
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCONTESTPublishingExcellencePublicationPolitical scienceDutyPublic relationsQuality (philosophy)Academic integritySociologyMedia studiesLawLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Producing this academic journal is an effort by many people from around the world. Most prominent among them are our authors, of course. But the unsung heroes of the journal are our reviewers, and those who kindly assisted us in 2018 we list in this issue of International Migration. Our reviewers are not paid for their time but offer it in a spirit of community and duty to the integrity of academic publishing. Most academic journals use a system of double-blind peer review, a long-established way to ensure the integrity of the publications. Although some contest the continued utility of the double-blind review method of striving for excellence, this journal continues to believe that it is the best system available for assessing the quality of the manuscripts that we receive. We want our readers, whether scholars, officials or the public at large, to have confidence in what they find in this journal. We also believe that reviewing is an essential way to participate in the collective endeavour of publishing, in fact, a responsibility of membership in an academic discipline. We at International Migration (the owner of the journal, The International Organization for Migration, the publisher, John Wiley and Sons, and I, the Editor) are extremely appreciative of the time that our reviewers offer to us and to the academic community. Anonymous reviews are at the heart of our claim to be distinct from what is now called fake news, the deeply partisan portrayals of events and offerings of partisan opinion that are represented as objective fact. Double-blind peer review is also among those features that distinguish academic publishing from journalism. Although both journalists and social scientists report on societal events, trends and their influences, journalists largely give us immediacy, whereas social scientists provide sustained research and analysis. Both have their rightful place in the public consciousness, something that cannot be said for fake news. Over the past decade, journalists have allowed us to observe the tragic events in the Middle East with often detailed daily developments. In this issue of International Migration, two special sections give us insights gained from sustained research and analysis on two of the most severe, the many migration effects of the wars in Iraq and in Syria. The first, Guest Edited by Rochelle Davis and Vicki Valosik, is titled “Displacement and Return in Iraq”. The second is “Syrian Refugees –Facing Challenges, Making Choices” with Guest Editors Ahmet İçduygu and Deniz Sert. Both offer us remarkable accounts of the ways in which people in these countries and those societies to which many have fled have adapted to the excruciating conditions of war, the often sudden and highly disruptive changes in their lives, the endless uncertainty, violence and displacement. Although many testaments to human resilience are to be found in reading these articles, so too are the deep challenges to national governments and the agencies of the international community in trying to mitigate the disasters that warfare brings. We hope that these special sections offer information and analyses that help governments and the international community better intervene to protect lives, human rights and the well-being of those forced to leave their homes.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.004

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.292 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational MigrationSame topicMiddle East and Rwanda ConflictsFrench-language works237,207