Bibliographic record
Abstract
Submit manuscripts via JOMI’s online submission service: www.manuscriptmanager.com/jomi Manuscripts should be uploaded as a PC Word (doc) file with tables and figures preferably embedded at the end of the document. No paper version is required. Acceptable material. Original articles are considered for publication on the condition they have not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere (except at the discretion of the editors). Articles concerned with reports of basic or clinical research, clinical applications of implant research and technology, proceedings of pertinent symposia or conferences, quality review papers, and matters of education related to the implant field are invited. Number of authors. Authors listed in the byline should be limited to four. Secondary contributors can be acknowledged at the end of the article. (Special circumstances will be considered by the editorial chairman.) Review/editing of manuscripts. Manuscripts will be reviewed by the editorial chairman and will be subjected to blind review by the appropriate section editor and editorial staff consultants with expertise in the field that the article encompasses. The publisher reserves the right to edit accepted manuscripts to fit the space available and to ensure conciseness, clarity, and stylistic consistency, subject to the author’s final approval. Adherence to guidelines. Manuscripts that are not prepared in accordance with these guidelines will be returned to the author before review. MANUSCRIPT PREPARATION •The journal will follow as much as possible the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (Vancouver Group) in regard to preparation of manuscripts and authorship (Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Ann Intern Med 1997;126:36–47). See
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".