Notice bibliographique
Résumé
until late 2006.The CJU had been the official journal of the CUA since 1996.The journal made a substantial impact nationally and internationally.However, due to increasing challenges involving the publisher of the CJU, the CUA decided in June 2006 to discontinue this relationship.I resigned as editor soon after, as did the board of the CJU.The CUA was determined to produce its own journal, the CUAJ, and invited me to serve as editor-in-chief.Before I accepted the position, I had extensive discussions with the CUA, its Board of Directors, and the CUA president and past president about our mutual roles and responsibilities.I concluded that the aims and objectives of the CUA in initiating a new journal were very close to my own.These are exciting times for the journal.We have a crackerjack managing editor, Josephine Sciortino, who was managing editor of the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ), and is preternaturally talented and energetic.There is a great deal of high quality basic, clinical, and health services research taking place in our field nationally and internationally which should provide the basis for strong scientific publications.We have been in contact with the National Library of Congress administrators, and we are confident that indexation on PubMed, retroactive to the first issue, will be forthcoming within one to two years.One of our main challenges is to encourage leading academic urologists and other clinicians to support this CUA initiative, and submit their highest quality research to CUAJ.In return, we will provide increased editorial assistance to authors and promise rapid manuscript turnaround.We will publish commentaries on certain review and research articles, theme-related supplements and point-counterpoint articles to highlight controversies in urology.We will also publish abstracts from the CUA, Northeastern section of the AUA, and QUA meetings.Our editorial board is a broad representation of specialists from training centres across the country, as well as clinicians and researchers from outside urology.We have also established a team of 100 reviewers who are committed to timely and high-quality appraisal of manuscripts.In addition, we plan to increase our content for French-speaking readers.Finally, we will be posting the complete issue online and are working toward an online submission and peer-review process.Urology and our health care system are both in a state of transition and face many challenges.CUAJ will continue to provide an opportunity for discussion of scope of practice, privatization, health care funding, wait times, screening, and other public policy related questions.CUAJ welcomes feedback from readers.I and the members of the CUAJ board will be happy to discuss the progress and vision of the journal with you in person at national and regional conferences.This is your journal.Help us build it, for the benefit of our Canadian urology community today and Canadian urologists of the future.
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 | 0,026 | 0,073 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,010 |
| Communication savante | 0,038 | 0,028 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,011 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,014 | 0,024 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,104 | 0,055 |
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 ».