MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6947703344 · doi:10.48252/jcr83

A TWIN INTERVIEW WITH DR B. ANDERSEN AND DR G. GOLDZWEIG BY THE JCR EDITORS IN CHIEF AWARDED TWO JCR BOARD MEMBERS BY INTERNATIONAL PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY SOCIETY (IPOS): BARBARA ANDERSEN (USA), WINNER 2023 ARTHUR M. SUTHERLAND AWARD AND MEMORIAL LECTURE; GIL GOLDZWEIG (ISRAEL), WINNER 2023 NOEMI FISMAN AWARD FOR LIFETIME CLINICAL EXCELLENCE.

2023· article· en· W6947703344 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Imaging for Blood Diseases
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Population and Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEditorial boardPsychosocialInitial public offeringVice presidentGeorge (robot)Associate editor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In advance of the 24th Annual World Congress of Psychosocial Oncology and Psychosocial Academy, held in Milan, Italy from August 31st to September 3rd, 2023, the International Psycho-Oncology Society (IPOS) has announced the winners of the 2023 IPOS Awards. The Journal of Cancer Rehabilitation is proud to announce that two of our very own Editorial Board Members, Dr. Barbara Andersen and Dr. Gil Goldzweig, have been honored as recipients of this year’s IPOS awards. Specifically, Dr. Barbara Andersen has been selected as the winner of the 2023 Arthur M. Sutherland Lifetime Achievement Award and will be honored by being invited to give the Memorial Lecture at the IPOS World Congress. , while Dr. Gil Goldzweig has been selected as the winner of the 2023 Noemi Fisman Award for Lifetime Clinical Excellence. This twin interview is dedicated to both esteemed colleagues and Journal of Cancer Rehabilitation board members.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0060.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.005

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.370 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicDigital Imaging for Blood DiseasesFrench-language works237,207