Musings of the editor in the last print issue of <i>Paediatrics & Child Health</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I am a proud member of the University of Alberta Medicine Class of 1983. My favourite parts of medicine have not changed in the 41 years since our graduation. Medicine provides ample opportunities for interesting conversations with a tremendous variety of people from all walks of life. I love getting to piece together the clues that lead to a diagnosis. Like when one reflects back on an Agatha Christie novel (or an episode featuring my favourite television detective Peter Falk as ‘Columbo’), I often could have derived the answer sooner had I attributed the correct weight to each potential clue. Some things in medicine are far better than they were 41 years ago. All physicians have ready access to the fruits of medical research including high-quality systematic reviews, leading to evidence-based guidelines. As much as Artificial Intelligence will not replace me yet, I am impressed with the ability of ChatGPT to derive a differential diagnosis for some of my difficult cases. Electronic medical records prevent the need to search aimlessly on the ward to find a patient’s chart and their Search function saves me time trying to figure out where the results of the tuberculosis skin test actually got recorded in the chart. However, I long for the days of concise progress notes when ‘Copy and paste’ was not an option. There have been losses along the way: Social interaction with those who I work with is not quite like it was before the pandemic. People work from home more and it’s not as easy as it once was to round up colleagues for a quick lunch. Interacting with children can be more challenging than in the past. They are generally displeased if one interrupts their video game to ask a question. Journals (including Paediatrics & Child Health) are moving towards online publication only. In a somewhat obsessive-compulsive fashion, I have read my favourite journals on a treadmill, on airplanes, and on car trips. Sure, I could still print the online version of a journal, use a hole punch, and put the pages in a Duotang, but that’s not the same as receiving a glossy journal in the mail. Not many years ago, I had let a journal subscription lapse. I read the latest issue online and then renewed the subscription. I got the print version of the issue that I read online in the mail shortly thereafter. It was striking how many things of interest to me I had missed in the online version, having not opened all the abstracts and not been able to readily flip through the pages to look at the figures and tables. Now it is time to cease grumbling about it and list the advantages of the upcoming online-only format for Paediatrics & Child Health: Moving online will save us printing 3.5 million pages annually. We can pretend that the majority of those pages got read and recycled, but we all know that is not true. The price of printing and mailing journals has outpaced inflation. Moving online means lower costs for subscriptions, including those that the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) purchases for its members. Once manuscripts are accepted, they will be published online as soon as they are ready and are likely to appear in an online issue within 1 to 3 months. In recent times, it sometimes took up to 1 year for that to happen in print. That benefits both readers and authors. Statistical analysis in medical publications has become increasingly sophisticated over the years. We will be able to incorporate more figures and larger tables, as well as multimedia like audio and video, into the main manuscript. Our page limit will no longer be strict. The page limit in the print version meant that we had to sacrifice another manuscript to publish a long one. I am a firm believer that authors prefer concise manuscripts, hence our word limit of 2500 words. However, in the future, we will have some flexibility if an author convinces us that they could improve their manuscript if allowed more words. This especially applies to qualitative studies. We will be able to publish colour photographs and figures at no charge to the authors. Of note, over one-quarter of readers already receive only the online version by request. All CPS members already have access to the journal online, using their CPS login details. Our Canadian and international readership can also continue to access the online journal through their institutional or personal subscriptions. To ensure you continue to receive the latest articles and updates from Paediatrics & Child Health, please take a moment to sign up for our email alerts: Sign in to your Oxford Academic account or create a new one here. Go to Email alerts. Click ‘Add alerts’ to specify the journals and alert types you wish to receive. Save your selection(s) by clicking on ‘Add alerts’. Your alerts are now listed on the ‘Email alerts’ page. You can edit this at any time. While you’re there, verify your details so you receive all updates from Paediatrics & Child Health. Click Edit personal details to verify your information. Now I just need to figure out how to download the online version of Paediatrics & Child Health onto a tablet to read on my treadmill.
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 | 0.008 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.023 |
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".