Bibliographic record
Abstract
RefeRencing, also known as citing, is acknowledging the information sources used within your research in order for others to identify and locate the items.There are two parts to referencing: citing within the text, and the reference list.why reference?• to support your research: It is important to reference other people's work to demonstrate your level of knowledge in the area and to put your research into context.• to acknowledge another's work: A reference is required for a direct quotation, when paraphrasing or summarising another writer and when using statistics, tables, graphs/diagrams or appendices which do not arise entirely from your own work. 1 A reference list allows other researchers to locate your sources and trace the development of your work.• to avoid plagiarism: The Oxford Dictionary defines plagiarism as the practice of taking someone else's work and ideas and passing them off as one's own.Nowadays there is software available that can detect plagiarism, eg.Turnitin (www.turnitin.com)and many educational institutions and publishers use this software to check articles and research to ensure the work is your own unless otherwise stated. Referencing stylesReferencing styles provide rules for referencing to ensure standardisation and consistency.The same set of rules should be followed every time you cite a reference.Two of the most well-known are the Harvard and the Vancouver styles.The choice of referencing style depends on what you are using your article for and you should always check if the journal, university or organisation you are writing for have their own rules for referencing and follow these accordingly.The Vancouver style, known as the numerical one, follows rules established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. 2 It is most frequently used in medical sciences and both Forum and the BMJ require you to use this style.References are listed in numerical order as to when they appear in the body of the text (see the online guide Citing & Referencing Guide: Vancouver Style 3 ). citing within the textThere are two ways of citing within the text: direct quotation or paraphrasing.Quoting is reproducing the actual wording from the original source.Direct quotations should be indicated by single quotation marks and the page numbers provided.Duplication of charts, diagrams, pictures, etc. should also be treated as direct quotes.Quotations should be used sparingly.Alternatively, you can paraphrase using your own words.A number is assigned to a source in the order in which it is cited in the text.If the source is referred to again, the same number is used.In order to indicate a citation, place the number beside the relevant text in superscript. A guide to correct and careful referencingCorrect and clear referencing is essential in order to present research accurately and avoid plagiarism, writes Trish Patton Forum Feature
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 | 0.034 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.135 | 0.185 |
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".