Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past three years, you may have noticed that the Journal Issues have become more 'voluminous', both in the British Journal of Social Work and other Journals in our profession.Publishers have encouraged us to clear the backlog of papers, which are published on 'advance access' and allocated them to Issues.During this process, the publishing reference changes for each paper.Its year of publication may change, too, depending on the backlog of articles a Journal may have not allocated to each of the Issues they publish.As this backlog is now cleared, our issues will return to a more manageable size of approximately twelve to seventeen papers and five book reviews per each of our eight yearly Issues.Going forward, this will also mean that we are less likely to select more than one paper as the Editor's Choice for an Issue.During the period where thirty to thirty-five papers were allocated to each of the Journal Issues, we regularly selected two to three papers as the Editor's Choices for each of them.This reflected the quality and the breadth of work we have a joy and privilege to publish in the Journal.In doing so, we were mindful of our ongoing commitment to promote diverse voices in social work knowledge production, including expertise by experience.When choosing a paper to become one of the Editor's Choice papers for the Issue, we are guided by the same criteria used for the selection of the 'best among the best'-the Kay McDougall Prize for the best Editor's Choice paper for each year.Introduced in 2013, the prize is awarded for a paper, which the Editorial Board members deem the best of the minimum of eight Editor's Choice papers each year, using the following criteria: breadth of scholarship, sophistication of theory, rigour of research, relevance to practice and international appeal.It is great that such a responsibility and assessment is conducted through supported decision making of sorts, within the Editorial Board.Each of the criteria may be applied and interpreted in a range of ways, depending on the background of the social workers involved in the selection, their understanding of the social work role and its history,
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 | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".