Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within the publishing industry, article numbering has emerged as an easy and efficient way to cite journal articles. Article numbering has already been successfully rolled out to Elsevier’s multidisciplinary open access journal Heliyon, as well as thousands of other journals, and has been well received by the academic community. Based on that positive feedback, we are now pleased to introduce article numbering to Arthroplasty Today from November 2022. A unique article number is an abbreviated form of an article’s DOI - digital object identifier. Citing an article with an article number is very simple: the article number is used instead of the page range in the citation. Style 3–Vancouver:[2]Van der Geer J, Hanraads JAJ, Lupton RA. The art of writing a scientific article. Heliyon. 2018;19:100205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.100205. While journal volumes and issue numbers will remain in place, article numbering will now play the key role in identifying specific articles. The introduction of article numbers brings several benefits for the journal and its readers and authors. •More flexible reading: Article content can be optimized based on the device used to access it, supporting reading on-the-move, without needing to know how many traditional print pages the article takes up.•Increased options for grouping related content: In online collections and Special Issues, articles can now be placed in any order, helping readers to identify papers relevant to their research interests faster.•Faster publication: With article numbers, the version of record of the article is online and citable as soon as the proof corrections have been incorporated, ensuring readers have access to the latest research faster. We are delighted that Arthroplasty Today’s readers and authors will now enjoy these benefits.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.014 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".