Notice: Canadian Acoustics journal moving to electronic format
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For more than five decades, the Canadian Acoustical Association diligently produced "Canadian Acoustics," a quarterly journal in hardcopy format. The journal's dedicated contributors, including editor-in-chiefs, associate editors, section editors, copyeditors, journal managers, reviewers, and esteemed authors, have played a significant role in its success. The process of printing and delivering hardcopies, while commendable, is now recognized as outdated. This note outlines the drawbacks of the traditional hardcopy model, including the substantial financial burden it placed on the association, its significant environmental impact due to paper printing and distribution, and its growing irrelevance in the digital age. Recent membership trends have shown a preference for accessing the journal's content online, highlighting the need for a transition. Consequently, the advantages of an electronic journal copy are emphasized, including the optimized allocation of CAA funds to enhance the journal's activities, reduced environmental impact in comparison to traditional printing and delivery, and enhanced exposure for authors and advertisers through digital platforms. Notably, the electronic version of the Canadian Acoustics journal content receives the most significant exposure and will be the primary focus of editorial efforts. While the default membership will transition to electronic access, an optional membership type with a slight price increase will cater to those who still prefer hardcopies. This decision, made at the October 2023 CAA Board of Directors' Meeting, aims to maintain affordable membership fees despite rising costs. The transition to an electronic format marks a pivotal moment in the evolution of the Canadian Acoustics journal, ensuring its continued relevance and accessibility in the digital era. The association welcomes inquiries and membership changes and can be reached at jcaa@caa-aca.ca.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.355 | 0.175 |
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".