MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399491322 · doi:10.1249/esm.0000000000000023

Editorial

2024· editorial· en· W4399491322 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer J. Heisz

Bibliographic record

VenueExercise Sport and Movement · 2024
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I am thrilled to report on the progress of the American College of Sports Medicine’s (ACSM) newest journal, Exercise, Sport, and Movement (ESM). After one full year of publishing, it’s incredible to see how far we’ve come in such a short time. In July 2023, I assumed the role of interim Editor-in-Chief (EIC). I sincerely thank our inaugural EIC, Gary Liguori, whose leadership established a strong foundation for great success for years to come. From him, I inherited a brilliant team of associate editors (AEs), including my two associate EICs, Katrina D. DuBose, Ph.D., FACSM, and Kimberley L. Way, Ph.D., AES-AEP (ESSAM). We recently welcomed two new AEs, Jenevieve L. Roper, Ph.D., CSCS, FACSM, and Celina H. Shirazipour, Ph.D., who will handle our growing submissions in biomechanics and physical activity in those with cancer and disabilities. We are all grateful to our dedicated editorial board for their thoughtful and timely reviews and to the ACSM leadership team, including our outstanding managing editor, Stephanie Custer, for their full support. When I tell people about ESM, the first question I get is, what’s the scope? My answer: all things related to exercise, sport, and movement in basic, clinical, and applied science. The scope is intentionally broad because it helps uphold our commitment to inclusive excellence. Diverse perspectives promote better solutions, and although we welcome all contributions, we are especially interested in publishing papers on topics that have traditionally been excluded from the scientific conversation. We have stacked our leadership team with diverse expertise to handle these essential contributions. We are particularly proud of our papers on Native American cancer survivors (1), sex differences in sports performance (2), and menopause in master athletes (3). We are also proud to be ACSM’s premier open-access journal where everyone anywhere can access the science we publish. We continue to uphold the highest standards in publishing that researchers have come to expect from ACSM and are leading the way in scientific transparency. We are the first ACSM publication to accept registered reports, a model allowing researchers to publish their methods before conducting their study. Methods are reviewed by our team of experts who provide thorough yet rapid feedback, and if the research is completed as planned, the results will be published regardless of the outcome. I see this as a fantastic option for student-led research projects, and I am hoping to offer incentives for student-led papers. We are committed to making science more accessible. Science communication is a personal passion of mine. I believe science should be accessible to everyone, and our open science practices certainly help with this. An essential piece of accessible scientific communication is the way in which information is conveyed. They say a picture is worth a thousand words—images can distill complex scientific concepts, making them easier to understand and remember. This is the purpose of our graphical reviews—brief visual summaries of essential topics in exercise, sport, and movement that can be understood by all. Some of our recent graphical reviews include the following timely and important topics: Resistance training (4) Climate change (5) Dementia (6) My student and I authored this last one; it was a great capstone project for her thesis. Graphical reviews also provide an excellent resource for teachers and clinicians to facilitate knowledge exchange with students and patients. AE L. Bruce Gladden, Ph.D., FACSM, is the brainchild behind our graphical reviews and welcomes new ideas—please reach out at [email protected]. Another meaningful way we are making science more accessible is by enhancing the shareability of our research beyond the walls of academia. Students are at the leading edge of disseminating science via multiple media outlets, and our Digital Editor, Emily F. Blake, MPH, a Ph.D. student at the University of Maryland, has raised the profile of ESM across social media to promote the fantastic research published in our journal. We are currently expanding our digital media team to launch a podcast series. Students interested in joining our digital media team should reach out to [email protected]. I couldn’t be happier with ESM’s progress so far. Guided by the principles of inclusive excellence, scientific transparency, and accessible communication, this is just the beginning of a long and successful journey in publishing the latest and greatest research in exercise, sport, and movement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExercise Sport and MovementSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207