Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry (The CJP) has a mandate to report scientific findings and to present them in a way that illuminates theory and practice of psychiatry in Canada and internationally. The medical literature is expanding rapidly. Nearly a million papers were indexed by MEDLINE in 2012—a doubling during the past 10 years. Review articles are essential for keeping up to date with this ever-expanding evidence base. To this end, The CJP has published, for some years now, a mixture of narrative and systematic reviews of the literature (including the In Review section that leads off each issue, along with a Guest Editorial) as well as original research. At this point, the Editorial Board would like to expand the journal’s mandate for reviewing research with important clinical implications. Therefore, the Editorial Board is introducing 2 relatively new sections to The CJP. The first, Systematic Reviews, will replace the older category of Review Papers. Our new Systematic Reviews will be focused investigations that seek to identify, appraise, select, and synthesize all high-quality research evidence relevant to a specific research question. The second, Perspectives, is one The CJP has used only occasionally. Our new Perspective papers will introduce a critical perspective on scientific issues that are controversial. While the Editorial Board has, by and large, avoided publishing opinion pieces, we, as a board, believe there is a role for papers that not only are strongly evidence-based but also take sides in a controversy. We believe these changes will make the journal livelier, and we invite submissions that meet these criteria. The CJP will continue to combine the invited In Review series on large topics with Original Research papers, with unsolicited manuscripts averaging 9.5 months from submission to publication in 2013, with peer-review comments being shared with authors less than 1.7 months after submission. These manuscript types are included in the updated Instructions for Authors, which is available online at http://www.TheCJP.ca and http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjp. New for 2014 is a Manuscript Checklist, which will allow authors to ensure they meet The CJP’s requirements and, in turn, to avoid potentially delaying publication of their manuscripts. As well, the new Manuscript Template includes useful tips on preparing manuscripts, which the Editorial Board hopes will make manuscript preparation faster and easier, particularly for junior researchers. We would like to take this opportunity to thank the Editorial Board, as well as our peer reviewers and book reviewers, all of whom work hard for The CJP without compensation. We would also like to thank Roger Bland, who has been Deputy Editor under 3 different editors-in-chief. Finally, we are grateful to our staff, most particularly our indispensable Director, Scientific Publications, Virginia St-Denis. Virginia is aided by Christine Jensen, Sylvia Pollard, Candace Taylor, Smita Hamzeh, and Elizabeth Payne. The Canadian Psychiatric Association’s new Chief Executive Officer, Glenn Brimacombe, has been immensely supportive.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,020 | 0,102 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,012 | 0,012 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,016 | 0,012 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,013 | 0,012 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,084 | 0,039 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».