Welcoming the Journal of Endodontic Microsurgery: Progress in Spite of War
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The international publishing traditions are inspiring. And similarly, as The New England Journal of Medicine (USA) and Postgraduate Medical Journal (UK) welcomed the newly created Canadian Journal of Surgery in 1957 and 1958, we welcome the launch of a new companion publication—the Journal of Endodontic Microsurgery (JEM)4—in 2022. The JEM is launched as an annual fully open access online-only and peer-reviewed journal. Four co-chief editors, which represent five countries and three continents, united their efforts to lead this growing “micro” direction—Colombia, Greece, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Endodontic microsurgery topic has been successfully published in different journals but only as a part of the content. The right time has come, and now the professionals from all over the world who dedicated their professional lives to the tooth-associated microsurgery can submit their manuscripts to the narrow-specialized publication. The JEM could be visited via the website https://jendodmicrosurg.org and its official Instagram page @j.endod.microsurg could be followed.
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 | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.028 |
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".