Bibliographic record
Abstract
I am honoured to begin my new role as Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research (JPHSR). As a political scientist, who has been actively engaged in the pharmaceutical health services research area for over twenty-five years, both as a researcher and as a policy practitioner, I hope to offer a perspective that will contribute to the rich multidisciplinary nature of the Journal. The research and policy issues that we examine in this space continue to be complex, critical to the health and welfare of populations, and relevant to health professionals and researchers throughout the globe. And while some of the JPHSR’s research articles may be focused on pharmaceutical health services research issues that are particular to a given country or region, very often, it is apparent that there are key lessons that transcend geographical borders. Knowledge sharing about best practices, lessons learned, and even lessons forgotten, across borders and cultures is critical here and where I expect the JPHSR can assume an even greater role in the years ahead. My goal is to continue to publish high quality research in all areas of pharmaceutical health services research that are of interest to a large and diverse audience. And I certainly look forward to having diverse, new voices and perspectives in the JPHSR in the years ahead, particularly from researchers who are from underrepresented communities. Lastly, a very big thanks and deep gratitude to my predecessor, Dr. Albert Wertheimer, and the JPHSR Editorial Board for their tremendous work on establishing the JPHSR and creating what it is today. I very much welcome the opportunity to build on this tremendous foundation and work with the editorial board and the team at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, Oxford University Press, as well as with the authors and readers that are critical to the JPHSR. With all of you, I am eager to collaborate and to continue to produce a Journal of quality and to advance, diversify and broaden its reach.
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 | 0.004 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.032 |
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".