MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415605182 · doi:10.5539/ijc.v17n2p96

Reviewer Acknowledgements for International Journal of Chemistry, Vol. 17, No. 2

2025· article· W4415605182 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Albert John

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Chemistry · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicChemistry and Chemical Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEditorial boardIslamState (computer science)Quality (philosophy)Research center

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

International Journal of Chemistry wishes to acknowledge the following individuals for their assistance with peer review of manuscripts for this issue. Their help and contributions in maintaining the quality of the journal is greatly appreciated. Many authors, regardless of whether International Journal of Chemistry publishes their work, appreciate the helpful feedback provided by the reviewers. Reviewers for Volume 17, Number 2 Ahmet Ozan Gezerman, Toros Agri-Industry, Research and Development Center, Turkey Alemayehu Gashaw Woldegiorgis, Bule Hora University, Ethiopia Ho Soon Min, INTI International University, Malaysia Kevin C. Cannon, Penn State Abington, USA Khaldun Mohammad Al Azzam, The University of Jordan, Jordan Nanthaphong Khamthong, Rangsit University, Thailand Nejib Hussein Mekni, Al Manar University, Tunisia Nurul Jannah Abd Rahman, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia, Malaysia Severine Queyroy, Aix-Marseille Université, France Sintayehu Leshe, Debre Markos University, Ethiopia Sitaram Acharya, Dallas College, USA Vinícius Silva Pinto, Federal Institute of Goiás, Brazil Albert John On behalf of, The Editorial Board of International Journal of Chemistry Canadian Center of Science and Education

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.250
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.250
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0580.037

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of ChemistrySame topicChemistry and Chemical EngineeringFrench-language works237,207