Guest Editorial / Editorial- collaboration speciale Being our own sponsors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I am honoured to have been asked to write the editorial for this issue of the Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy (CJOT), now celebrating the 80th anniversary of its first appearance. Published in 1933, that first issue was something of a public relations campaign for a still new profession trying to break new ground. Two thousand copies were produced, which far exceeded the number of practising occupational therapists in Canada. The intent was to use the journal to increase awareness of the profession more broadly. Copies were sent to superintendents of hospitals, sanatoriums, and institutions that had more than 25 beds; to all medical staff and boards of hospitals who had already adopted occupational ther-apy; and to other settings where it was felt there was potential for developing the work. In recognition of the strong gatekeep-ing role that physicians played regarding services, a letter writ-ten by the Toronto neurologist Dr. Goldwin Howland, the first
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 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 0.050 |
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".