La revista de Perinatología y Reproducción Humana: Balance Editorial 1987-2000
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The Journal of Perinatologia y Reproduccion Humana (JPRH) appears in 1987, it belongs to four national indexes, among them: Artemisa of the CENIDS and the index of Latin American Literature in Sciences for Health (LILACS) of the PAHO that covers information of journals of Latin America and the Caribbean. In a hemerographic evaluation of Mexican journals in health, the JPRH was considered as one of the five Mexican magazines that fulfill in complete form the international norms of Vancouver. Material and methods: All papers published in the JPRH were analyzed, of 1987 to 2000, for that which different aspects were studied, as: publication type, area, specialty, investigation line, origin institution, author’s number and participant institutions and the first author’s gender. Results: Of the 361 papers analyzed, 67% was original articles, 16% to revision articles, 12% special articles and 5% clinical cases. According to the area of the knowledge: 61% came from the clinical area, 27% of the sociomedical and the rest of the biomedical area. The most frequent specialty was the Gynecology and Obstetrics 11%, Perinatology 11% and the Psychology 9%. For the institutional origin of the first author, 72.3% corresponds to investigators from the Perinatology National Institute and the rest, to other institutions, 4% of the work came from foreign institutions. In relation to the gender to the investigators, 38.5% was women and the rest men. Discussion: In 1994, the Committee for Evaluation of Biomedical Mexicans Journals of the CENIDS, recommended that an approach for the evaluation of the medical journals, it should be that 65% of the published articles, they were original articles. In our analyses, it highlights the fact that the papers published in the HPRH that required revision, 67% corresponded to that category.
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.008 |
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".