Musings of the editor in the last print issue of <i>Paediatrics & Child Health</i>
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
I am a proud member of the University of Alberta Medicine Class of 1983. My favourite parts of medicine have not changed in the 41 years since our graduation. Medicine provides ample opportunities for interesting conversations with a tremendous variety of people from all walks of life. I love getting to piece together the clues that lead to a diagnosis. Like when one reflects back on an Agatha Christie novel (or an episode featuring my favourite television detective Peter Falk as ‘Columbo’), I often could have derived the answer sooner had I attributed the correct weight to each potential clue. Some things in medicine are far better than they were 41 years ago. All physicians have ready access to the fruits of medical research including high-quality systematic reviews, leading to evidence-based guidelines. As much as Artificial Intelligence will not replace me yet, I am impressed with the ability of ChatGPT to derive a differential diagnosis for some of my difficult cases. Electronic medical records prevent the need to search aimlessly on the ward to find a patient’s chart and their Search function saves me time trying to figure out where the results of the tuberculosis skin test actually got recorded in the chart. However, I long for the days of concise progress notes when ‘Copy and paste’ was not an option. There have been losses along the way: Social interaction with those who I work with is not quite like it was before the pandemic. People work from home more and it’s not as easy as it once was to round up colleagues for a quick lunch. Interacting with children can be more challenging than in the past. They are generally displeased if one interrupts their video game to ask a question. Journals (including Paediatrics & Child Health) are moving towards online publication only. In a somewhat obsessive-compulsive fashion, I have read my favourite journals on a treadmill, on airplanes, and on car trips. Sure, I could still print the online version of a journal, use a hole punch, and put the pages in a Duotang, but that’s not the same as receiving a glossy journal in the mail. Not many years ago, I had let a journal subscription lapse. I read the latest issue online and then renewed the subscription. I got the print version of the issue that I read online in the mail shortly thereafter. It was striking how many things of interest to me I had missed in the online version, having not opened all the abstracts and not been able to readily flip through the pages to look at the figures and tables. Now it is time to cease grumbling about it and list the advantages of the upcoming online-only format for Paediatrics & Child Health: Moving online will save us printing 3.5 million pages annually. We can pretend that the majority of those pages got read and recycled, but we all know that is not true. The price of printing and mailing journals has outpaced inflation. Moving online means lower costs for subscriptions, including those that the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) purchases for its members. Once manuscripts are accepted, they will be published online as soon as they are ready and are likely to appear in an online issue within 1 to 3 months. In recent times, it sometimes took up to 1 year for that to happen in print. That benefits both readers and authors. Statistical analysis in medical publications has become increasingly sophisticated over the years. We will be able to incorporate more figures and larger tables, as well as multimedia like audio and video, into the main manuscript. Our page limit will no longer be strict. The page limit in the print version meant that we had to sacrifice another manuscript to publish a long one. I am a firm believer that authors prefer concise manuscripts, hence our word limit of 2500 words. However, in the future, we will have some flexibility if an author convinces us that they could improve their manuscript if allowed more words. This especially applies to qualitative studies. We will be able to publish colour photographs and figures at no charge to the authors. Of note, over one-quarter of readers already receive only the online version by request. All CPS members already have access to the journal online, using their CPS login details. Our Canadian and international readership can also continue to access the online journal through their institutional or personal subscriptions. To ensure you continue to receive the latest articles and updates from Paediatrics & Child Health, please take a moment to sign up for our email alerts: Sign in to your Oxford Academic account or create a new one here. Go to Email alerts. Click ‘Add alerts’ to specify the journals and alert types you wish to receive. Save your selection(s) by clicking on ‘Add alerts’. Your alerts are now listed on the ‘Email alerts’ page. You can edit this at any time. While you’re there, verify your details so you receive all updates from Paediatrics & Child Health. Click Edit personal details to verify your information. Now I just need to figure out how to download the online version of Paediatrics & Child Health onto a tablet to read on my treadmill.
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 | 0,008 | 0,041 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,019 | 0,019 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,028 | 0,023 |
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 ».