Bibliographic record
Abstract
the journal was entering the digital age of publishing.CJOT reviewers and authors were excited to throw out their paper and stamps and embrace the electronic world: The early online edition was launched, overlapping publications decreased, and paper subscriptions were being replaced with electronic versions.After the completion of my 5-year term as editor, the changes for CJOT had only begun.This transformation was imperative to honour the impetus for the journal as stated by Dr. Goldwin Howland, the first CAOT president, who wrote in the inaugural issue that the journal was important for the profession as people were ''frequently absolutely ignorant of this form of therapy.''Fast-forward to 2013 and thankfully this is no longer the situation, but there is still a need to be vigilant for occupational therapy to be visible and on the health care radar screen.CJOT is a critical vehicle to publish cutting-edge research for occupational therapists and other disciplines.The journal is now firmly planted in the 21st century with an impact factor, RRS feeds, e-mail alerts, and instant accessibility via Sage Publications.We can all be extremely proud of this first-rate journal that speaks to our history and our future.Happy 80th Anniversary!
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 0.089 |
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".