MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255427384 · doi:10.1017/s0965539512000137

EDITORIAL

2012· editorial· en· W4255427384 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Steve Robson

Bibliographic record

VenueFetal and Maternal Medicine Review · 2012
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGratitudeDemisePublishingMedicineKarelLibrary scienceClassicsLawHistoryPolitical scienceArt historyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After 12 years as Editor-in-Chief of Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review I have decided to step down, albeit I welcome the opportunity to stay on as an Associate Editor. The last 12 years have witnessed a lot of changes, not only in the field of Perinatal Medicine but also in medical publishing, with the near demise of the ‘paper-based’ journal. I have enjoyed working with Cambridge University Press who have embraced these changes and remained strong supporters of the ‘Review Journal’ concept. The quality of the papers published over this time has progressively improved and we have continued my initial vision of publishing not only clinical but scientific reviews in a range of topics related to Maternal and Fetal Medicine. I owe a huge debt of gratitude to all the Associate Editors who have contributed over the last 12 years; Karel Marsal (Lund, Sweden), Lucilla Poston (London, UK), Mark Kilby (Birmingham, UK), Tze Kin Lau (Hong Kong) and Jason Waugh (Newcastle, UK). However I would particularly like to thank John Kingdon (Toronto, Canada) and Carl Weiner (Kansas, USA) who have stayed the course and whose sage contributions have been outstanding. Most importantly I would like to acknowledge the assistance of Jean Birtles whose endless detective work and ‘polite reminders’ have made my job considerably easier. Jean is also stepping down as Editorial Assistant.

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)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.293 · 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.

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFetal and Maternal Medicine ReviewSame topicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyFrench-language works237,207