ISMTE 2025 Wrap-Up—Editors Without Borders: Breaking Silos in a Technological World; August 6-8; Montreal, Canada—Day 2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Publishing noted how we are dealing with a lot at this moment; and over the past few months, the publishing space has been part of the large list of industries seeing pressure.Cancelled and withheld grants, layoffs, attacks on what words can and cannot be referenced without undergoing scrutiny (such as the word "woman"), removed pages from websites having to do with DEI in any wayit's been tough.But we are science publishers, and with that comes a specific attitude that at its heart can protect us or at least represent the kind of society we want to be a part of.We see the evidence, remain independent, and hold responsibility over what we publish.Standards matter, and that allows us to maintain control over the directions of our journals.The stronger our values as a publication, the easier it is to spot negative changes and flawed societies trying to break down the walls that allow for accurate and important studies to reach the public.Josephine and Alice both encouraged us to find our safe spaces-allies, colleagues, community, safe places to vent and find support-as well as to learn about those societies and ethics bodies that are taking a stand.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".