© 2005 CMA Media Inc. or its licensors Commentary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An Ad-hoc Committee * of the Editorial Board wasasked by Dr. John Hoey, the former editor in chief ofCMAJ to review a series of recent events that he as-serted compromised the editorial independence of CMAJ. We have reviewed the events, examined documents, and in-terviewed selected members of the editorial team to obtain their perspective. We view the episodes as raising serious concern about the integrity of the journal, its reputation, and its viability in the community of top medical journals. The initial conflict that prompted the formation of the Committee involved a news report about guidelines followed by Canadian pharmacists in dispensing the emergency con-traceptive Plan B (oral levonorgestrel).1 Detailed accounts of the controversy surrounding publication of the report were submitted to us for consideration by the journal’s senior edi-tors and news staff.2,3 We find fault with the willingness of the editorial team to
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 | 0.004 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.032 |
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".