MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1712904707

A guide to correct and careful referencing

2012· article· en· W1712904707 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Patricia Patton

Bibliographic record

VenueLenus, The Irish Health Repository (Dr Steevens Hospital Library) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAcademic Writing and Publishing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.311
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLenus, The Irish Health Repository (Dr Steevens Hospital Library)Same topicAcademic Writing and PublishingFrench-language works237,207