Bibliographic record
Abstract
t is with great pride that I am writing this message for the inaugural issue of our Journal, the Canadian Urological Association Journal (CUAJ).As you may know, Canadian urologists, whether they practice in an academic or community setting, are very active in scientific research.On top of regular attendance at our meetings, members of our association also make notable contributions at several international meetings.Therefore, it makes sense that an association like ours has a vehicle to disseminate the scientific works of its members and foreign colleagues.This wish came partially true during the past fourteen years thanks to a partnership with entrepreneurs who owned the Canadian Journal of Urology.Owing to a fruitful collaboration between these owners and several members of our association, the CJU was built up and became indexed in 2001.However as years went by, this partnership became questionable because the leaders of our association wished to modernize the journal and make it more able to respond to our members' needs whereas the owners preferred to collect benefits rather than reinvest in educational services.We were in an unhealthy situation where the volunteer scientific work of our members was only being used to increase the commercial value of a company that not only kept the profits, but also represented a direct competition to obtain funds from the pharmaceutical industry and distributors of medical supplies.Over the past few years, your executive has worked to modify our relationship with the CJU.Recent discussions regarding the creation of an Office of Education made the need to control our own journal even more pressing.In June 2005, an ad hoc committee was set up to negotiate a new partnership.After a process that lasted close to a year, we were not able to reach a mutual agreement in spite of generous offers on our part.In June 2006, the decision was made at the Annual General Meeting to severe all ties with the CJU and to control our own journal either by acquiring it or creating a new journal.The owners' behaviour made this latter option the only one possible.After a few legal hurdles, which we have overcome, and thanks to the infallible support of all the members of the executive and of our association, a new journal took shape.We chose an experienced editor, Dr. Laurence Klotz, with whom we shared our recommendations on the journal's direction.We assured him of our desire to give him editorial independence and freedom to set up his editorial board.We established an operating budget and set up the necessary infrastructure for the journal to function properly.As managing editor for CUAJ, we hired Ms. Josephine Sciortino, who until recently occupied this position at CMAJ, the leading medical publication in Canada.The tight collaboration between our executive, the staff at the CUA central
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 | 0.007 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.178 | 0.115 |
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".