Bibliographic record
Abstract
Australian Economic History Review.The journal is now known as the Asia-Pacific Economic History Review.The new name recognises the journal's breadth and diversity.We regularly publish important research in economic history and cognate subject areas for a broad Asia-Pacific region extending from the Pacific coast of the Americas to east, south and southeast Asia.The new name signifies no change in the journal's editorial focus or mission.Case studies, global and comparative economic development, and the economic history of Australia and New Zealand continue to be important.Rather, the new name more accurately reflects the journal's content.The journal is changing in other ways.It is now primarily an online journal with the option for EHSANZ members to obtain a print-on-demand subscription.Another change is the increasing share of articles that are open access.In large part, this is driven by agreements between the publisher Wiley and a fast-growing list of universities whose faculty and students may publish open access at no cost.See
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 | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.285 | 0.213 |
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".