Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is my first editorial for the British Journal of Learning Disabilities. Being a journal editor for the first time is an exciting yet daunting experience. It has been made easier by the good wishes, advice and suggestions from colleagues. I have still got a lot to learn and at this early stage I particularly welcome ideas and suggestions for the future of the journal. My first task is to pay tribute to my predecessors in the role of editor. Dorothy Atkinson has been working as sole editor since the Summer of 2008 and before this was joint editor with Gordon Grant prior to his retirement. Jan Walmsley also served as joint editor and played a major part in the development of the journal. Now that I have had an insight into the role of editor I realise what hard work it is and that helps me to appreciate even more the contribution that previous editors have made. Among the changes that I have particularly valued in recent years has been the way in which the journal has become more accessible while retaining the high standards of scholarship. Clarity and accessibility and academic rigour should go hand in hand and I intend to develop this as a feature of the journal in the future. My special appreciation has to go to Dorothy who has been a great support in the handover period between her and my editorship. Thanks must also go to Sheena Rolph who has served as reviews editor for many years. Sheena has carried out the often thankless task of persuading people to write reviews with her usual charm and generosity. Her role is now being taken by Liz Tilley who I know will continue Sheena’s excellent work. As to the future, the circulation of the journal is both healthy and varied. In my view this reflects the fact that it has consistently published work from a wide range of disciplines. Learning disability services have a reputation for multidisciplinary work but this is not always reflected in academic publishing where there is a tendency to retain parallel single professional debates. I intend to continue the practice of encouraging publication from a wide range of professional and academic disciplinary backgrounds as well as from people with learning disabilities, families and carers. This journal should be a place where different worlds meet. I am fortunate in this respect as I hold a joint post between a University and a learning disability service. This engages me with people from a wide range of personal and professional backgrounds hopefully keeps me grounded in the need to help improve the opportunities for people with learning disabilities. Finally I’d like to repeat my offer to you to engage with me in discussion about the development of the journal. I’m open to new ideas, particularly at this early stage of my editorship, so please get in touch and let me have your views.
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 | 0.005 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".