Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.084 | 0.039 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".