Clarifying differences and exploring opportunities for collaboration between <i>CJOT</i> and <i>OT Now</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists (CAOT) has two platforms for publishing articles, the Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy (CJOT)—its peer-reviewed journal— and Occupational Therapy Now (OT Now)—its practice magazine. Together, these publications provide CAOT’s membership and global readership with forward-thinking articles covering the current breadth of, as well as newly developing possibilities for, occupational therapy practice relevant to the Canadian context. Over the past few years, the editorial boards for CJOT and OT Now have discussed ways of creating opportunities for collaboration by leveraging, to their full potential, the opportunities provided by the scope and the nature of production of each publication. With the two publications evolving constantly in response to dynamic practice and publishing landscapes, this editorial is focused on describing the current scope of each publication, their similarities and differences, and the opportunities for collaboration in the promotion of evidence-based, occupation-based practice.
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 | 0.014 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".