MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143208858 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.060985

Editorial independence for CMAJ: signposts along the road

2006· article· en· W2143208858 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Neil MacDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsCanadian Medical Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndependence (probability theory)ExcellenceCorporate governancePolitical scienceMedicineManagementLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The CMAJ Governance Review Panel, formed in March 2006 to “review the CMAJ 's governance structure and to provide objective recommendations to further the CMAJ 's continued commitment to editorial independence and maintaining excellence in reporting on the science and the art of medicine,”

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)0.171
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.378
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.906

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1710.378
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0210.010
Scholarly communication0.0390.013
Open science0.0060.009
Research integrity0.0470.056
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0510.037

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.323 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicHealth and Medical Research ImpactsFrench-language works237,207