Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Journal of Anesthesia expanded electronic archives project was announced in January 2006. 1 It had been developed over two years by our Editor-in-Chief, Donald Miller, after talks with HighWire Press about open-archiving policies being adopted by some biomedical journals.All articles published in the Journal can now be searched on the internet by authors' names, key words or publication dates (www.cja-jca.org).Citations are listed and there are links to full text and abstracts after January 1, 2000, with PDF files and abstracts for all articles from 1966 to 1999.Articles are available only to subscribers, or on a pay-per-view basis to non-subscribers, for one year after publication.After that, they become freely available on the internet. Changing Journal policiesThis is not the first time that there has been a major change in the publication policies of the Journal.The "Proceedings of the Society", first published in 1952, became the quarterly "Canadian Anaesthetists' Society Journal" in 1954.This evolved into the "Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia" in 1987, and is now a monthly publication, the "Canadian Journal of Anesthesia".These name changes reflect an increasing readership and maturing editorial and business policies of the publication.The printed version has been complimented by the "The Electronic Anesthesia Library (TEAL )" CD ROM since 1997, and an online full-text format for the last seven years.The expanded electronic archives project is consistent with improving services to readers and respects the traditional business model of biomedical journals.It assumes that key subscription and advertising revenues are based upon protection of the most recent 6-12 months of material.There will be no anticipated revenue loss, with only modest costs for optical scanning of PDF files and ongoing hosting charges. Emergence of electronic journal publicationTraditional print-only publication of biomedical journals is being challenged by the emergence of electronic publication and internet distribution.2 The digital medium offers the alternative of faster dissemination of unlimited amounts of information, with the elimination of printing and distribution costs.It is seen as a solution to the "serials crisis", brought about by the rapid growth in the number of biomedical journals in the 1990s, higher production costs, publication delays, rising journal prices to individual subscribers, and institutional budget restrictions that limit the ability of libraries to purchase serials.Typically, smaller societies hosting subscription-based print journals have found it difficult to meet higher costs and some, such as "CRNA: The Clinical Forum for Nurse Anesthetists", ceased publication.3 As world-wide access to inexpensive internet technology becomes available, traditional publishing models are no longer viable.Institutional repositories have been hosted on the internet to provide permanent archiving and allow easy access to out-of-print articles or electronic-only articles.Individual authors'articles or full journals can be posted on sites such as PubMed Central, which hosts over 200 journals including BMJ, CMAJ, Canadian Family Physician, and PloS Medicine (www.pubmed-central.nih.gov).As more journals post articles and supplements online, few journals remain print-only.Between 2003 and 2005, publication of internet-only articles doubled from 7 to14% (60/861 to 128/917 of all articles) in 138 high impact journals (including the "New England Journal of Medicine", "Pediatrics", "CMAJ" and "British Journal of Anaesthesia"). 4 Most journals use hypertext to make electronic linkages to citations and send e-mail notifications to subscribers, but few have taken advantage of the potential for interactive functions.Nevertheless, reading habits of journal subscribers have changed: from dependence on printed journals and libraries to using computer access to literature from the internet.
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 | 0.074 | 0.305 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.066 | 0.055 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.050 |
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".