Research Networks: a fundamental value-added for scientific communication
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This edition of Universitas Psychologica has a special value because it is the result of a collaborative work with a research group from the Universidad de La Frontera led by Ricardo Perez Luco, Jaime Alfaro and Beatriz Paes from Chile, who organized the “First International Seminar of Juvenile Justice. Be and Ought to be of the public policy” a meeting that brought together world leading researchers in order to investigate an emerging and critical problem in our societies, such as the juvenile justice. We accep their proposals after agreeing the compliance of our demands of peer review and think that we are a trusted international academic channel. The first 14 articles of this edition were the result of an exhaustive peer-review evaluation, which have guaranteed quality. We hope readers will recognize the building of the theme proposed. This edition contains articles from universities and institutions of Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, The United States, Spain, Italy, France and Mexico.\n\nMoreover, I would like to mention the importance of our panorama section in which we are publishing interviews with world leading academics such as Professor Mario Bunge, one of the most influential living philosophers of our time (author\nof the Treaty of Philosophy 1974-1989 “one of the most ambitious projects of modern philosophy” and of numerous, influential and provocative books on multiple topics of the contemporary society); and recently with Kenneth Gergen, a theorist who has significantly substantiated the social constructivist psychology and critical perspectives associated with this. There are also interviews with psychologists\nwho have made contributions to psychology, as Fernando González Rey. Universitas will continue publishing these types of articles for discussion and reflection, as well as a quality research, and we invite our readers and authors to evaluate the presentation of this kind of contributions.\n\nWilson López López\nEditor
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 it