Citation Inaccuracy in a Scientific Journal
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Three hundred and fourteen (20%) of the citations found in Environmental and Experimental Botany, volumes 41-42, 1999, were selected randomly and checked for accuracy. There were 232 errors identified. At least one error was found in 45.4% of the citations. While more than one-half of the citations with errors had only one error, one citation had seven and one had eight errors. There was an increase in the percentage of citations with errors and in the number of errors per citation compared to a 1990 study of the same journal. Key Words: Citation inaccuracyreference inaccuracyreference accuracycitation accuracyreference errorscitation errors
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.101 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.036 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 it