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
As we approach our 18th year of publication, we are delighted with the continued progress of the Journal.In 2012, we received a total of 183 manuscripts, with a monthly average of 15 and an average rejection rate of 49%.From these, we published a total of 83 articles, totaling 405 pages for the entire volume.Thirty percent of these were original articles.Seventy-three percent of published articles were from the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR), with 45% from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), 2% from the Gulf, and 25% from other Arab and EMR countries.The remaining 28% of published articles we received from Canada, China, Greece, India, Italy, Malaysia, and Turkey.Compared with the previous year, we have seen an increase in local submissions from KSA.This includes an increase in active submissions from the journal's affiliated organizations, the Saudi Association of Neurological Surgery, and the Saudi Epilepsy Society.We encourage all members of these organizations to submit their research for consideration in the journal.The average time from received to acceptance of original articles was 4 months, and 2.7 months for acceptance to publication.Reasons for rejection included unrelated topics, poor content, not meeting the requirements of the journal, authors failing to submit revisions and other necessary requirements, and duplicate publication.We are always striving to develop the peer review process to improve the scientific quality of published papers, and in 2012, we changed from a single-blind to a double-blind peer review process.Although this has introduced an extra step in the workflow of the review process,
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.037 |
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