MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2205591131

Inaugural message from the new coeditor

2003· article· en· W2205591131 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Garth L. Warnock

Notice bibliographique

RevuePubMed Central · 2003
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésEnthusiasmScholarshipMedicineAudience measurementPublic relationsQuality (philosophy)MentorshipCitationMedical educationPsychologyLawPolitical science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In approaching my new role as coeditor of the Canadian Journal of Surgery, I wish to express my sincere thanks to those who supported my appointment to such a privileged position. I am looking forward to my new duties with great enthusiasm. Fourteen years has elapsed since I published my first scientific communication in the Journal. My mentors had always taught me that in submitting a manuscript for publication I should seek the best peer review process possible. There was little doubt that I was rewarded with one of the most stringent peer reviews that I have ever received! I can recall subsequent discussions about the merit of publication leading to my own career advancement and citing its review by the Journal. Thus, the Journal has been and continues to aim for the highest possible quality of scholarship in disseminating new knowledge in clinical and basic science research. I look forward to holding up the fine tradition established by the Journal's editorial staff and expanding a role as an authoritative voice for developments in Canadian surgical practice and science. To illustrate some of the forthcoming challenges, I summarize some key points discussed this week among the Chairs of the Canadian University Departments of Surgery that affect our academic and our greater communities in surgery. The departmental leadership within our country is on the cusp of transition in that fully one-half of the departments are undergoing a search for new leadership or have recently appointed new leaders (me included). · Effective recruitment to Canadian academic and community surgery must be maintained. Key questions were posed about the needs for surgical recruitment, key areas of unmet needs and the relation of surgical to nonsurgical programs of recruitment. In this, the “social accountability” toward sustaining viable scholarship and practice in surgery must be vigorously maintained. · New challenges in educating greater numbers of undergraduate and postgraduate surgical trainees lie ahead. These range from augmenting the numbers of trainees to full-scale expansion of new medical programs in distributed (community) sites. The new activity will pose major questions with respect to sustaining the quality of surgical education and corresponding audit of effective surgical teaching. The culture must be ingrained with rapid health reform that has been suggested by the recent Romanow Report. · Relationships between surgical communities across Canada must be sustained as well as relationships with our surgical colleagues internationally. The advance of surgical innovation within our country must be nurtured and supported. We are already witnessing collaboration among partners in health regions, provincial ministries and surgical practitioners on a scale never previously observed; for example, in networks that seek to improve access to surgical care through definitive wait list management projects. New interaction with surgical societies on our continent and internationally needs to be fostered. · Particularly important in rapidly evolving surgical practice and scholarship is the transition to new leaders in Canadian surgery. With the change in our academic departments as an example, it is essential that we prepare and mentor our successors so that they can be as effective as possible in leading surgical programs in the future. In summary, these are a few of the pressing issues that await Canadian surgical specialists and their leaders. I look forward to a new role with colleagues on the editorial staff of CJS to ensure that the Journal remains in the vanguard to advance new knowledge in surgical care. My aspiration is to sustain the quality of excellence in peer review that the Journal has benchmarked so well. Garth L. Warnock, MD Coeditor

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,019
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,080
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,019
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,101

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0190,080
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0100,006
Communication savante0,0170,010
Science ouverte0,0040,009
Intégrité de la recherche0,0170,052
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0180,012

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,071
Tête enseignante GPT0,341
Écart entre enseignants0,270 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2003
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePubMed Central→Même sujetHealth and Medical Research Impacts→Travaux en français237 207→