Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It Is time for the second issue of the year, and we have high hopes and many plans for the journal's future. All major journal performance indicators suggest a healthy status for the IEEE <sc xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Systems Journal</small> to remain among the top performers within the field. We understand, however, that there is always room for improvement. As one of our current plans to better serve the research community, we have decided to increase our presence on social media. Therefore, the content of each issue will be more visible and accessible to our readers, and they will thus gain an easy way to find an article they are interested in. Some of our future plans were initiated from the feedback we received from our reviewers and authors, some stemmed from suggestions offered by the IEEE Systems Council leadership in a recent Systems Council meeting, and others arose from an exchange of ideas with other Editors-in-Chief of IEEE journals at a recent Panel of Editors meeting. Furthermore, in addition to expanding the Editorial Board by adding new Associate Editors, Senior Associate Editors, and Senior Editors, we have also restructured it so that the submitted papers’ scope is evaluated more efficiently at the submission time.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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 it