Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.026 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.038 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.104 | 0.055 |
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".