Bibliographic record
Abstract
This past year I had the privilege of joining the Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (JCAG) as its inaugural Editorial Fellow. The position was developed with the goal of providing an interested trainee of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) experience in the peer-review and publishing process, as well as exposure to the inner workings of Canada’s premiere gastroenterology journal. Given my career goal of becoming a clinician-scientist, I was excited and honoured to be awarded this position. The experience was invaluable. Like most medical residents, gastroenterology trainees have varying degrees of research experience. However, the opportunity to learn about the scientific publishing industry is certainly unique. Through attendance at monthly meetings with the JCAG’s publisher (Oxford University Press), I was able to gain an understanding of the editorial and publishing side of research from both an administrative and academic perspective. I was exposed to many challenges that all academic journals undoubtedly face, for example: the process of being listed by various indexing services and applying for an impact factor, budgeting and financial restraints, advertising, and partaking in a revamp of the JCAG’s website and print design. I experienced the never-ending challenge that most academic journals encounter with attracting and rewarding editors and manuscript peer reviewers, who all volunteer their time and expertise. One of the most rewarding components of the JCAG Editorial Fellowship was the experience of reviewing manuscripts and taking on an Associate Editor position. I honed communication skills, including the process of giving thoughtful and constructive feedback. I also noted how individual reviewers each bring different experiences and strengths to the peer-review process. The peer-review process is a tool for strengthening research. It allows us to give back to the research community through the promotion of quality research—a process that undoubtedly has criticisms but is there to aid in the advancement of knowledge, support innovation, and ultimately benefit our patients. Through all of this, I gained insight into new and emerging research trends and identified unmet needs in today’s academic and clinical gastroenterology environment. Partaking in the review process allows one to see the latest research prior to publication, which can be very exciting. This sharpened my curiosity and tenacity, both vital skills in research. However, arguably most importantly, these experiences have the potential to positively influence patient care through my practice as a gastroenterologist. It was a privilege to receive attentive and insightful mentorship from the Editor-in-Chief (Dr Eric Benchimol) and Associate Editors (Dr Talat Bessissow and Dr Sanjay Murthy) of JCAG, who were not only invested in the success of the new position but also my personal success as well, an honour for any trainee. This position was designed with the aim of supporting and encouraging the development of budding academic gastroenterologists, and I feel strongly that the combination of mentorship and experience has done so and will continue to contribute to the education and career development of future JCAG Editorial Fellows. I am grateful for this opportunity, and I am excited to continue to work with the gastroenterology community in Canada and abroad. Supplementary material is available at Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology online. None declared. Conflicts of interest disclosure forms (ICMJE) have been collected for all co-authors and can be accessed as supplementary material here. There are no data associated with this editorial article.
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 | 0.021 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".