Requisitos uniformes para preparar los manuscritos enviados a revistas biomédicas.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En 1978, un reducido grupo de directores de revistas médicas generales que se publican en inglés se reunió de manera informal en Vancouver (Canadá) a fin de fijar normas con respecto al formato que deberían adoptar los manuscritos enviados a esas publicaciones. Este fue el inicio de lo que con el tiempo llegó a conocerse como el Grupo de Vancouver. Sus requisitos para la preparación de manuscritos, que incluían el formato de las referencias bibliográficas creado por la Biblioteca Nacional de Medicina de los Estados Unidos, se publicaron por vez primera en 1979. Con el paso del tiempo el Grupo de Vancouver creció y se convirtió en el Comité Internacional de Directores de Revistas Médicas (CIDRM), que se reúne una vez al año y que gradualmente ha venido ampliando los temas que le conciernen.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.017 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".