Bibliographic record
Abstract
Paediatrics & Child Health is a publication that serves as a means of communication, a documentary record, and the voice of the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS). Moreover, by design, it is a tool for improving the health and health care of children and youth in Canada. Recently, the editor-in-chief asked the CPS Board to initiate a review to see if Paediatrics & Child Health was “on target”. Did it meet the mission that had been established for it? Was it meeting the needs of the readers and the needs of the society of professionals that sponsors it? The CPS was fortunate to be able to engage Dr Robert Haggerty for this external review. Dr Haggerty is renowned as the editor of Pediatrics in Review, emeritus professor at the University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, and founder of the Ambulatory Pediatric Association. If anyone understands the dual mandate of continuing health professional education and advocacy, it is Dr Haggerty. In fall 2003, Dr Haggerty met with the editorial board, the staff and the publisher of Paediatrics & Child Health. His report applauds the CPS for establishing a unique role for the journal. To advocate for the health of all children and youth in Canada. To provide educational material and information to all providers of health care to children in Canada. To advocate for the health of all children and youth in Canada. To provide educational material and information to all providers of health care to children in Canada. To advocate for the health of all children and youth in Canada. To provide educational material and information to all providers of health care to children in Canada. To advocate for the health of all children and youth in Canada. To provide educational material and information to all providers of health care to children in Canada. The emphasis on advocacy distinguishes Paediatrics & Child Health from other Canadian medical publications. It enables the CPS to use position statements on issues such as nutrition, immunization and injury prevention to make real changes. Paediatrics & Child Health is sent to Ministers and Deputy Ministers of Health, Medical Officers of Health and others who make things happen in Canada. We know that it is used by federal and provincial officials who formulate government policy and allocate resources. Dr Haggerty applauded the use of Paediatrics & Child Health theme issues for this purpose. Dr Haggerty was impressed by the quality of the articles and the position statements. This reflects the work of the editor (Dr Noni MacDonald), associate editor (Dr Lee Ford-Jones) and senior editorial coordinator (Colette Laplante), who put much effort into the “writes and rewrites” of the material. Drs MacDonald and Ford-Jones view this extra effort to nurture the writing abilities of contributors as a “labour of love”. Readability is a very practical consideration. In Noni's words, “if no one reads an article, the article won't change anything.” A key issue of the review was whether Paediatrics & Child Health should put greater effort into getting Index Medicus citation status. At present, Paediatrics & Child Health is cited in EMBASE/Excerpta Medica and is distributed to 15,500 paediatricians and family physicians across Canada. Articles are chosen expressly for this target audience. Obtaining citation status could require solicitation and publication of much more original research. Obtaining citation status could mean that Paediatrics & Child Health could attract the best in Canadian paediatric research. However, these articles would likely crowd out the review articles and position statements, which are used so extensively by our readers. Dr Haggerty counselled against dramatically modifying the journal to win Index Medicus approval. On the contrary, he felt that, considering the increasing emphasis on translational research, Index Medicus may eventually sanction journals such as Paediatrics & Child Health that focus on the distillation of research literature and advocacy for societal change. The review produced several practical suggestions. Among these were adding page numbers to the articles listed on the cover to better draw in the reader, adding graphs to certain articles to heighten reader interest, and soliciting more articles on topics in child development and adolescent medicine. The availability of the journal through the Web site of the publisher, Pulsus Group Inc, was seen as a big plus. Increasingly, professional audiences use the Internet to search for new information and review previously published guidelines and policies. The fact that articles in Paediatrics & Child Health are used to formulate questions for Royal College certification exams keeps paediatric residents attuned to our publication. Lastly, the review underscored that this remarkable publication is produced by a skeletal staff. The Paediatrics & Child Health senior editorial coordinator, Colette Laplante, is also responsible for the coordination of CPS position statements. Dr Noni MacDonald turns the publisher's editorial fees back to the journal to help with operating expenses. Dr Lee Ford-Jones does extensive editorial work without recompense. The CPS owes an enormous debt of gratitude to these three individuals. Dr Haggerty's final remarks suggest that “the journal is a very visible vehicle of the CPS and needs to be publicized as a jewel in their crown”. We know that the CPS membership regards Paediatrics & Child Health as their top member benefit. Clearly, we know quality when we read it.
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 | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.007 |
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".