From abstract to publication: What makes the grade?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objectives: To determine the proportion of abstracts published in the Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy ( CJHP ) that become full-length papers in professional journals and to identify the determinant(s) of whether or not an abstract is published as a full paper. Methods: Our database consisted of all abstracts published in CJHP from 1992 through 1996. We determined the publication status of associated full papers from questionnaire responses, a Medline search, and an author index search of CJHP . Results: Of 363 abstracts, 89 (25%) became full-length papers. Thirty-six (40%) of these papers appeared in CJHP . With the exception of 1992 when the publication rate was 82%, overall publication rates from year to year were similar and ranged between 20 to 26%. Award winning abstracts were published more frequently than non-award winners at a rate of 49% vs. 21%, respectively ( p < 0.0001). However, the publication rate of awards authored by residents (44%) was not significantly different than that of non-resident projects (46%; p = 1.000). Likewise, single author papers had a lower, but not significantly lower, publication rate (19%) than did multiple author papers (27%; p = 0.1091). Conclusions: Only one-quarter of abstracts published in CJHP from 1992 through 1996 have been published as full-length papers. The only significant determinant of whether or not an abstract became a full paper was its status as an award winning abstract in that these were more likely to be published in full form than were non-award winning abstracts. RESUME Objectifs: Determiner la proportion de resumes publies dans le Journal canadien de la pharmacie hospitaliere (JCPH) dont l'article correspondant dans sa version integrale fera l'objet d'une parution dans un magazine professionnel, et identifier le ou les determinants qui font qu'un resume fera ou non l'objet d'une publication de l'article correspondant dans sa version integrale. Methodes: Nous avons utilise notre base de donnees contenant tous les resumes publies clans le JCPH entre 1992 et 1996 inclusivement. Nous avons determine l'etat des projets de publication associe aux manuscrits integraux, a partir des reponses aux questionnaires, d'une recherche dans Medicine, et d'une recherche indexee par auteur clans le JCPH. Resultats: Des 363 resumes, 89 (25 %) ont fait l'objet d'une publication de l'article correspondant dans sa version integrale, dont 36 (40 %) dans le JCPH. A l'exception de 1992, annee ou le taux dc publication etait de 82 %, le taux de publication global d'une annee a l'autre etait semblable et variait de 20 a 26 %. Les resumes primes ont ete publies plus frequemment que ceux qui ne l'etaient pas, pour un taux de publication de 49 % c. a 21 %, respectivement (p < 0,0001). Cependant, le taux de publication des resumes primes ecrits par des residents (44 %) n'etait pas significativement different du taux des resumes ecrits par des non residents (48 %; p = 1,000). De facon semblable, les articles a auteur unique avaient un taux de publication inferieur (19 %), quoique non significatif, aux articles a auteurs multiples (27 %; p = 0,1091). Conclusions: Seulement le quart des resumes publies dans le JCPH de 1992 ci 1996 inclusivement ont fait l'objet d'une publication de 1'article correspondant dans sa version integrale. Le seul determinant significatif qui fait qu'un resume fera ou non l'objet d'une publication de l'article correspondant dans sa version integrale etait le fait qu'il avait ete prime. En effet les resumes primes avaient plus de chance de faire l'objet d'une publication de l'article correspondent dans sa version integrale.
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 | 0.097 | 0.630 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.012 |
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".