Bibliographic record
Abstract
As many of you know, during the past 2 years we have had serious delays in publishing research articles that have been through the peer review and revision process and that are waiting in our “holding file.” Some articles have waited up to 12 months after acceptance to be published. This delay is unacceptable. We are proceeding with a plan that addresses the delays we have been experiencing and speeds up the process of publication. During the past year we have been working with PubMed Central. This means that all our peer-reviewed articles, including research, will be listed in the PubMed Central database in full text and will be freely accessible from searches on PubMed. Full-text versions of the articles are already published on the Canadian Family Physician website and will continue to be freely available there as well. The main change is that the print version of Canadian Family Physician will now feature only the abstracts of research articles and the full text will be available on-line at our website. All articles will be fully indexed and, in fact, will be more readily accessible to anyone searching the regular PubMed database. In the print journal, each research abstract will occupy one page in English and one page in French. These two pages contrast with the current length of six to eight pages per article. This saving in print pages allows us to increase the number of research articles published each month. There are distinct advantages to this plan. First, we will now be able to publish more research articles per issue, increasing our capacity and decreasing the time between acceptance and publication. Second, having the full text available from a PubMed search increases the likelihood of an article’s being cited by other researchers. This plan has been discussed at several meetings of the Section of Researchers of the College and has been endorsed by several prominent researchers in Canada. As a result of this change, authors will now be allowed 350 words for the abstract. Because casual readers will see only the abstracts, I suggest researchers add as much specific detail as possible within the new word count. Editor’s key points will also appear on the same page. This is a major change in publishing, and to my knowledge, we are the only journal taking this step. It appears to be the best solution. At Canadian Family Physician, we thought this would be a win-win solution for both authors and readers. It will enable better citation for authors, more rapid publication times, greater capacity for research, and preservation of print pages for other parts of the journal. I would be interested in your comments about this plan, and suggest you contact me at ac.cpfc@ynot. I thank all authors for their patience; I look forward to better serving the research community.
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 | 0.094 | 0.240 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.037 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.020 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.069 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.081 | 0.040 |
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".