Bibliographic record
Abstract
After 42 years of continuous publication, CJNR (Canadian Journal of Nursing Research) is under threat, along with six other independent nursing and health journals.A major source of the Journal's operating funding is being withdrawn.In order to survive we need your support.In 2009 CJNR marked its ruby anniversary -its 40th year of continuous publication.This would be a remarkable achievement for any journal, but it was a particularly remarkable achievement for an academic journal that is one of the few to still be housed and published by a university, in this case McGill University, in the School of Nursing.CJNR, originally called Nursing Papers, was founded in 1969 as a forum for the exchange of scholarly ideas among nurses across our vast country.This was a time when nursing research was in its infancy.There were just a handful of nurse scholars and a handful of universities offering master's programs.The establishment of doctoral programs in nursing was decades away.There were no peer-reviewed journals to disseminate the work of nurse researchers in this country.In 1974 Nursing Papers transitioned into a nursing research journal and its name was changed to Canadian Journal of Nursing Research.Over the past three decades, nursing research has grown at an exponential rate as universities have expanded their graduate programs, the number of doctorate-prepared nurses has risen substantially, and nurse scholars have developed research programs.CJNR, as Canada's premier nursing research journal, has capitalized on the talents, skills, and expertise of leading Canadian nurse scholars who have served as guest editors, reviewers, and authors to further the dissemination of nursing research for the betterment of patient care.For a more detailed history, see my editorial titled "CJNR Celebrates Its Ruby Anniversary" (Gottlieb, 2009).The majority of research journals founded in universities have ended up in for-profit publishing houses.The journals were established by a professor or group of professors employed by a university.These were small businesses whose editors were required to have not only the academic credentials and skills necessary to select quality manuscripts but also the managerial skills needed to produce and finance a journal.One by
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 | 0.033 | 0.172 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.040 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.029 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.168 | 0.118 |
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".