TRANSFORMATION, REVOLUTION, EVOLUTION: PROVOCATIVE TIMES FOR PROSTHETICS & ORTHOTICS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ARE WE CRAZY?The launch of a new journal, the Canadian Prosthetics and Orthotics Journal (CPOJ), is a good time to consider the brilliance – or foolhardiness – of such a venture as well-established peer-review journals struggle to survive. The challenges faced by the traditional, print based, peer-review publishing model are rooted in a greater wave of rapid disruptive change influencing technology innovation models and economic models in a wide range of sectors, including health care across the clinical care delivery continuum. How will this change influence prosthetics and orthotics and what does it mean for the future? These are important questions to consider, as CPOJ charts a course aiming to respond to these trends in a positive, sustainable way while adhering to high professional and academic standards. Finding answers starts with a short reflection on the causes of this change: the threads weaving the fabric of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/30000/22875 How to cite: Raschke S.U. Transformation, revolution, evolution: provocative times for prosthetics & orthotics. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. Volume1, Issue1, No1, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v1i1.30000
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 | 0.017 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".