Source References and the Scientist's Mind-Map: Harvard vs. Vancouver Style
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a scientist develops, a referencing system (linking results/hypotheses to sources) evolves in the mind. This mind-map is an essential working tool that uses indexing features—such as author names—as reference points. The Harvard style (HS), in which citations in the text are made of names and years of publication and the references are listed in alphabetical order, actively helps to establish this mind-map. In our view, the Vancouver style (VS), in which citations in the text are numbers and the references are listed in order of appearance within the text, does not enhance the formation of a mind-map in a similar way and makes detections of incongruity between the reader's mind-map and the text more difficult. In an ideal academic world, HS would be used because of these two effects: constant education of and easy quality control by the scientific reader. Although VS reduces printing space and allows easier reading for less academically trained readers, scientific readers may find this style difficult when trying to check and verify sources. For reviewers, who cannot opt not to make such checks, VS is even more tedious. We advocate that journals using VS in print should use HS for the reviewing process; further, in the final printed version, the references should be numbered and listed alphabetically rather than according to the order in which they are cited. Especially for maturing scientists, reading texts with HS referencing is essential.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".