Journal Watch: An Inter-University Collaborative Learning Partnership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes Journal Watch, a monthly lunchtime discussion group of faculty, staff and graduate students from the University of Toronto, McGill University and the Centre of Excellence for Child Welfare (CECW) in Canada. The group searches journals each month for empirical research on child welfare, which are reviewed during monthly videoconferences. Short reviews of exceptional articles are shared in both English and French with the broader community of child welfare researchers and practitioners across Canada through CECW's electronic newsletter. Journal Watch provides a broad overview of the emerging published research in child welfare, translates and disseminates this research to a broad audience, and trains new scholars in critical thinking. Two years after formation, the group is operating sustainably and there is a demand among Canadian child welfare practitioners for Journal Watch's succinct reviews.
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 | 0.029 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.065 | 0.025 |
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".