MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W33020572 · doi:10.1093/pch/9.1.12

Paediatrics & Child Health: A different kind of journal

2004· article· en· W33020572 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Robert M. Issenman

Notice bibliographique

RevuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2004
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueChild and Adolescent Health
Établissements canadiensCanadian Paediatric Society
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMandateChild healthHealth careMedicineNursingMedical educationPediatricsFamily medicinePolitical scienceLaw

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Paediatrics & Child Health is a publication that serves as a means of communication, a documentary record, and the voice of the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS). Moreover, by design, it is a tool for improving the health and health care of children and youth in Canada. Recently, the editor-in-chief asked the CPS Board to initiate a review to see if Paediatrics & Child Health was “on target”. Did it meet the mission that had been established for it? Was it meeting the needs of the readers and the needs of the society of professionals that sponsors it? The CPS was fortunate to be able to engage Dr Robert Haggerty for this external review. Dr Haggerty is renowned as the editor of Pediatrics in Review, emeritus professor at the University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, and founder of the Ambulatory Pediatric Association. If anyone understands the dual mandate of continuing health professional education and advocacy, it is Dr Haggerty. In fall 2003, Dr Haggerty met with the editorial board, the staff and the publisher of Paediatrics & Child Health. His report applauds the CPS for establishing a unique role for the journal. To advocate for the health of all children and youth in Canada. To provide educational material and information to all providers of health care to children in Canada. To advocate for the health of all children and youth in Canada. To provide educational material and information to all providers of health care to children in Canada. To advocate for the health of all children and youth in Canada. To provide educational material and information to all providers of health care to children in Canada. To advocate for the health of all children and youth in Canada. To provide educational material and information to all providers of health care to children in Canada. The emphasis on advocacy distinguishes Paediatrics & Child Health from other Canadian medical publications. It enables the CPS to use position statements on issues such as nutrition, immunization and injury prevention to make real changes. Paediatrics & Child Health is sent to Ministers and Deputy Ministers of Health, Medical Officers of Health and others who make things happen in Canada. We know that it is used by federal and provincial officials who formulate government policy and allocate resources. Dr Haggerty applauded the use of Paediatrics & Child Health theme issues for this purpose. Dr Haggerty was impressed by the quality of the articles and the position statements. This reflects the work of the editor (Dr Noni MacDonald), associate editor (Dr Lee Ford-Jones) and senior editorial coordinator (Colette Laplante), who put much effort into the “writes and rewrites” of the material. Drs MacDonald and Ford-Jones view this extra effort to nurture the writing abilities of contributors as a “labour of love”. Readability is a very practical consideration. In Noni's words, “if no one reads an article, the article won't change anything.” A key issue of the review was whether Paediatrics & Child Health should put greater effort into getting Index Medicus citation status. At present, Paediatrics & Child Health is cited in EMBASE/Excerpta Medica and is distributed to 15,500 paediatricians and family physicians across Canada. Articles are chosen expressly for this target audience. Obtaining citation status could require solicitation and publication of much more original research. Obtaining citation status could mean that Paediatrics & Child Health could attract the best in Canadian paediatric research. However, these articles would likely crowd out the review articles and position statements, which are used so extensively by our readers. Dr Haggerty counselled against dramatically modifying the journal to win Index Medicus approval. On the contrary, he felt that, considering the increasing emphasis on translational research, Index Medicus may eventually sanction journals such as Paediatrics & Child Health that focus on the distillation of research literature and advocacy for societal change. The review produced several practical suggestions. Among these were adding page numbers to the articles listed on the cover to better draw in the reader, adding graphs to certain articles to heighten reader interest, and soliciting more articles on topics in child development and adolescent medicine. The availability of the journal through the Web site of the publisher, Pulsus Group Inc, was seen as a big plus. Increasingly, professional audiences use the Internet to search for new information and review previously published guidelines and policies. The fact that articles in Paediatrics & Child Health are used to formulate questions for Royal College certification exams keeps paediatric residents attuned to our publication. Lastly, the review underscored that this remarkable publication is produced by a skeletal staff. The Paediatrics & Child Health senior editorial coordinator, Colette Laplante, is also responsible for the coordination of CPS position statements. Dr Noni MacDonald turns the publisher's editorial fees back to the journal to help with operating expenses. Dr Lee Ford-Jones does extensive editorial work without recompense. The CPS owes an enormous debt of gratitude to these three individuals. Dr Haggerty's final remarks suggest that “the journal is a very visible vehicle of the CPS and needs to be publicized as a jewel in their crown”. We know that the CPS membership regards Paediatrics & Child Health as their top member benefit. Clearly, we know quality when we read it.

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)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,027
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: Éditorial
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,017
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,056

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,027
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0050,006
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,006
Communication savante0,0170,006
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0050,009
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0170,007

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 Opus0,040
Tête enseignante GPT0,362
Écart entre enseignants0,321 · 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
Publié2004
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePaediatrics & Child HealthMême sujetChild and Adolescent HealthTravaux en français237 207