Reviewer Acknowledgements for Journal of Mathematics Research, Vol. 10, No. 6
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Journal of Mathematics Research 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 is greatly appreciated. Many authors, regardless of whether Journal of Mathematics Research publishes their work, appreciate the helpful feedback provided by the reviewers. Reviewers for Volume 10, Number 6 Abdessadek Saib, University of Tebessa, Algeria Ahmed Saad Rashed, Zagazig University, Egypt Arman Aghili, University of Guilan, Iran Denis Khleborodov, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russia Gabriela Ciuperca, University Lyon 1, France Gane Sam Lo, Universite Gaston Berger de Saint-Louis, Senegal Gener Santiago Subia, NUeva Ecija University of Science and Technology, Philippines Hayat REZGUI, Ecole normale Supérieure de Kouba, Algeria Kuldeep Narain Mathur, University Utara Malaysia, Malaysia Marek Brabec, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Czech Republic Meltem Erden Ege, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Turkey Mohammad Sajid, Qassim University, Saudi Arabia Nik Mohd Asri Nik Long, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia Philip Yordanoff Philipoff, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Bulgaria Rami Ahmad El-Nabulsi, Athens Institute for Education and Research, Greece Rovshan Bandaliyev, National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan Sanjib Kumar Datta, University of Kalyani, India Sergiy Koshkin, University of Houston Downtown, USA Sophia Wang On behalf of, The Editorial Board of Journal of Mathematics Research Canadian Center of Science and Education
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 | 0.041 | 0.398 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.073 | 0.042 |
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".