Celebrating Our Eighth Annual <i>International Journal of Older People Nursing</i> Awards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We are delighted to announce our eighth annual International Journal of Older People Nursing (IJOPN) Awards.As editors, we are very conscious that we guide a community of readers, authors, reviewers, social media editors and editorial board members.So many members of our community serve the journal and contribute to our discipline of gerontological nursing in diverse and noteworthy ways.Each year at this time, we acknowledge outstanding contributions and service during the prior year.This year, we are celebrating the contributions made by three papers reporting research conducted in three different countries around the world.We are acknowledging the service of four peer reviewers, three of our outstanding cadre of editorial board members and our senior social media editor who is also a peer reviewer.We are pleased to highlight the thoughts of the scholars who received our 2023 IJOPN Awards for you, our readers, as we celebrate their contributions.
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 | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.043 |
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".