MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017839645 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.v66i1.1204

What Will It Take? The Quest to Achieve Indexing by the National Library of Medicine

2013· article· en· W2017839645 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Mary H. H. Ensom

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistory of Medical Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNational librarySearch engine indexingLibrary scienceInformation retrievalWorld Wide WebComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

T o become indexed in MEDLINE has been a goal of the Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy (CJHP) for as long as those of us on the Editorial Board can remember.We believe that the benefits of achieving indexing in MEDLINE are enormous.First, indexing will provide more exposure for the work of authors who publish in the CJHP.That is, authors' articles will be more widely disseminated and more readily available to other clinicians and scientists around the world, who can then incorporate this new knowledge into their practice or build on the published work.Second, indexing will lead to more high-quality submissions.I have heard from more than a few of my academic colleagues who work in a "publish or perish" environment that they do not submit papers to the CJHP because "it is not indexed".Once we achieve indexing status, however, authors will receive more recognition, more citations, and higher impact for their published papers and therefore will be more likely to submit their high-quality work to CJHP.Third, indexing is expected to improve the value of the Journal not only for authors but also for readers, subscribers, advertisers, and its owner, the Canadian Society of Hospital Pharmacists (CSHP), for all the reasons described above.If you have searched PubMed recently, you may have noticed that you are already able to retrieve citations of articles published in the CJHP.This is because the Journal was successful in its 2010 application for archiving in PubMed Central (PMC), the US National Institutes of Health's free digital archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/).PMC is part of the larger PubMed service, which also includes MEDLINE, the primary international online bibliographic citation database of biomedical and life sciences journal literature.PubMed now includes a link to the material that CJHP has available on the PMC site.This is great news, but PMC archiving is only one step toward indexing.That is, at the PubMed site, CJHP citations are denoted as "PubMed -in process" or "PubMed".Only after the CJHP is indexed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) will it say "PubMed -indexed for MEDLINE".

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.079
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.280
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0790.280
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0160.017
Science and technology studies0.0070.013
Scholarly communication0.0400.038
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0160.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.031

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital PharmacySame topicHistory of Medical PracticeFrench-language works237,207