Canada Communicable Disease Report 2016 readership survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: (CCDR) is a peer reviewed scientific journal published since 1975. In 2011, a readership survey was conducted to inform a revitalization process. In late 2016, this survey was repeated to assess progress. OBJECTIVE: To provide information about the results of the CCDR 2016 readership survey, which identified CCDR's readership and their needs, obtained feedback on the journal's revitalization and sought suggestions for further improvement. METHODS: An online readership survey was conducted from September 7 to 28, 2016. Invitations were sent via email to CCDR subscribers. The survey was based on the 2011 version and checked for face-validity. Analysis included descriptive statistics and a qualitative assessment of comments for themes. RESULTS: A total of 549 people responded to the survey (12% participation rate). The majority of respondents worked in public health (61%), clinical care (23%), academia (16%) and laboratory medicine (9%). Approximately 45% of respondents had received CCDR for less than four years, which is consistent with the fact that the number of subscribers more than doubled over this time. Over 90% of respondents reported they read the articles in CCDR (always 15%, often 43%, sometimes 35%). When asked about their primary source of infectious disease information in Canada, CCDR was the number one response, identified by 72% of respondents. When asked "What do you like best about CCDR?" typical comments were that it provided Canadian content, was well written, evidence-based, interesting and relevant. The number one suggestion for improvement was that CCDR should be listed with PubMed. CONCLUSION: The survey results suggest that CCDR has been successfully revitalized and is meeting its readership's needs for a scientific journal on infectious disease with Canadian content, high quality and relevance. Consistent with suggestions for improvement, CCDR will be joining the PubMed database over the next year.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".