From Foundation to Future: 75 Years of PAFMJ and Its Global Aspirations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The PAFMJ is one of the few South Asian biomedical journals that was created within the original framework of military and civilian collaboration within the medical field.1 The first volume of the PAFMJ was published with very few resources and personnel; however, it laid the foundation for a strong future. By the time it completed its first decade of publication (1950-1965), the PAFMJ had already published over one hundred scientific papers in a wide variety of newly emerging areas of medicine, such as pathology, virology, and tropical medicine.2 These early contributions were made by a small group of people, usually done on typewriters, and demonstrated an enormous amount of perseverance and curiosity that has led to the success of the PAFMJ today. Between the years 1970 to 2000, PAFMJ transitioned from an institutional newsletter to an organized, nationally recognized medical journal. The establishment of the Army Medical College and Department of Basic Medical Sciences in the late 1970s created the foundation for the journal’s institutionalization. In addition, the 1990s witnessed dramatic changes that significantly improved the quality and credibility of PAFMJ. These changes included the establishment of an Editorial Advisory Board, under the direction of Surg Gen DGMS(IS), and adherence to best practices for medical journals (e.g., adoption of Vancouver style for references and implementation of a strict policy of double-blind peerreviewed evaluations to eliminate bias in manuscript evaluations. In keeping with these changes, PAFMJ expanded its publication cycle to a regular quarterly format, whereas, before this, it was published sporadically. Thus, by 2005, PAFMJ had become a regular, and therefore a mainstay, scientific journal in the biomedical sciences of Pakistan with four issues published each year by following the ICMJE and COPE standards for editorial processes.3
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.041 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.010 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".