The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry in 2014 and beyond
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry (The CJP) has a mandate to report scientific findings and to present them in a way that illuminates theory and practice of psychiatry in Canada and internationally. The CJP must pursue its mandate within the rapidly shifting sands of contemporary scientific publishing. The past decade has seen an unprecedented proliferation of new journals and publication models, most notably the emergence and growth of online and open-access publishing. The results of these changes have been mixed. While open access has improved the widespread dissemination of scientific knowledge and has produced some top-tier online journals, it has also resulted in thousands of low-quality journals that have shaken the confidence of many people about the integrity of the peer-reviewed literature. Another development has been the emergence of large-scale, online publishing platforms, such as PLOS ONE. These more closely resemble multi-purpose archives than any traditional medical journal. At The CJP, our goal is to implement the best aspects of these new models, while preserving the strengths of traditional publishing models. We are proud of our 60-year tradition and the solid mission of the journal, but we must move with the times. Articles in The CJP become open access after 6 months, fulfilling the requirements of research funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the US National Institutes of Health. These articles are now indexed on PubMed Central, providing global and universal access to anyone, anywhere in the world, with the click of a mouse. We now provide authors with an open access option, at a discounted rate for Canadian Psychiatric Association members and affiliates, allowing immediate worldwide accessibility for their work. While the readership of The CJP makes it the best way to reach the national audience, it can now provide the same international accessibility as an international journal. In recent years, The CJP has introduced various publication formats for reviews, addressing various needs. The In Review series allows a focused and detailed treatment of contemporary topics. Perspective articles provide scholarly treatment of controversial issues, allowing authors to take a position on those issues. Systematic Review papers provide comprehensive summaries of important topics. Such reviews are increasingly important, given the rapid growth of the literature. In 2013, the Web of Science indexed 2 178 456 papers, about twice the number indexed 20 years earlier in 1993. Over 27 thousand articles were indexed under the research area of Psychiatry in 2013 alone. Topical syntheses of this literature are needed. Both Systematic Reviews and In Reviews provide an informed distillation of evidence from diverse sources, often systematically summarizing evidence from hundreds or even thousands of papers. The CJP continues to welcome research reports, both as full-length Original Research papers and as Brief Communications, as well as Letters to the Editor and Book Reviews. The Editorial Board’s aspiration is to become the preferred destination for the highest-quality, clinically relevant Canadian psychiatric research. We also hope to attract international contributions of increasing calibre. To this end, I express my gratitude to the Editorial Board of The CJP for the many hours they devoted to their work in 2014 and to the many scientists listed on the next page who have devoted their time and expertise to the processes of peer review for The CJP. Their efforts are the single most important protection of the quality of our published content. Their constructively critical comments also greatly improve the quality of manuscripts that are accepted for publication. While quality peer review does take time, the average article published in The CJP in 2014 was submitted less than 9 months before it was published, with authors receiving peer-review comments within 1.5 months. I also acknowledge Dr Joel Paris for the 10 years (2004 to 2014) of leadership that he provided to The CJP as its Editor-in-Chief, and for his mentorship and guidance during my transition into this role.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it