10 years of <i>JAMMI</i>: The tin anniversary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the traditional symbology of wedding anniversaries, the 10th one is conventionally referred to as the "tin anniversary."This issue of the journal is the first in Volume 10, launching the 10th anniversary of JAMMI, the journal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease (AMMI) Canada.Given the vagaries of medical and scientific publication over the last decade, this is something of which we should be proud.The first issue was published on April 1, 2016.Although no paper in that issue reviewed the background of how JAMMI came to be, it is interesting to summarize the events that transpired in 2014 and 2015.JAMMI came about following the sale of our previous journal, CJIDMM, from a Canadian to a non-Canadian publisher.Consequently, we lost the copyright to our previous publications, including our published guidelines.Following this change, it was determined that we should seek out a new publisher for a new journal, at that point yet to be named, where we would have full ownership and the ability to steer the journal's course and to ensure ownership of published material in the journal.Through the determined efforts of then Editor-in-Chief, Dr John Conly, and the AMMI Canada Council of that time, we were able to negotiate and sign an agreement with our current publisher, University of Toronto Press, and embark on the launch of what is now an open access journal affectionately called JAMMI.JAMMI's growth over the last 10 years has been impressive.We now receive on average over 40 submissions annually and continue to publish four issues per year.As submissions have increased, the quality of submissions has followed suit, leading to a rise in rejection rate through the
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 | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.022 |
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".