MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2761974730 · doi:10.1093/pch/21.5.234

Two decades at the helm

2016· article· en· W2761974730 on OpenAlexaff
Joan Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHistorical Psychiatry and Medical Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMEDLINEPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Noni MacDonald took on the daunting task of inaugural editor of Paediatrics & Child Health (fondly referred to as ‘PCH’ by those of us ‘in the know’) 20 years ago. This was a high-risk endeavour because a previous Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) journal lived a very short life until the publisher went bankrupt. Noni's goal was never that PCH become a competitor for the mainstream paediatric journals. Instead, Noni was speaking the language of ‘knowledge translation’ (presenting research findings in such a way that clinicians start using them in their clinical practice) before that term was even coined. She constantly reminds everyone that readers want short and clear articles that have a ‘take-home’ message. In fact, she may be less than pleased that we are using up a precious page in PCH for this tribute to her. On Noni's watch, PCH achieved the major milestone of being indexed in PubMed and achieving a respectable impact factor for a Canadian specialty society journal. This step markedly increased the number of readers who have access to the Journal. Before this, Noni spearheaded a program in which paper copies of PCH were mailed to interested physicians with limited Internet access in resource-poor countries to try to improve the state of global paediatric care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0920.032

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicHistorical Psychiatry and Medical PracticesFrench-language works237,207