Off with a Bang! Introducing the Journal of Natural Health Product Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
properties, physiological effects, manufacturing, use as functional foods or medicines, or use, knowledge and beliefs amongst users and non-users alike.Many of these substances also fall within the realm of "dietary supplements", "traditional", "complementary", "functional" or "alternative" medicines [1].The Canadian context is particular in that all NHPs must adhere to regulations set forth by the Natural and Non-prescription Health Products Directorate (NNHPD) before entering the market.Indeed, the NNHPD is the authority responsible for regulating the sale of NHPs in Canada.Notably, it was tasked by the Canadian government with the role of ensuring that "Canadians have ready access to natural health products that are safe, effective and of high quality while respecting freedom of choice and philosophical and cultural diversity" [2].It is also, to our knowledge, the only regulatory agency worldwide to be mandated to foster research on the products it regulates.When it was instated in 2000, the NNHPD (previously the Natural Health Products Directorate) brought together many Canadian scientists doing research on NHPs to advise them on that matter.It induced a momentum that lead to the creation of the Natural Health Product Research Society (NHPRS) of Canada in 2003.The JNHPR notably shares the NHPRS's mission to facilitate and support meaningful, scientifically rigorous research and education in the field of natural health products.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.028 |
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".