Bibliographic record
Abstract
In scientific circles, the reference is the information that is necessary to the reader in identifying and finding used sources. The basic rule when listing the sources used is that references must be accurate, complete and should be consistently applied. On the other hand, quoting implies verbatim written or verbal repetition of parts of the text or words written by others that can be checked in original. Authors of every new scientific article need to explain how their study or research fits with previous one in the same or similar fields. A typical article in the health sciences refers to approximately 20-30 other articles published in peer reviewed journals, cite once or hundreds times. Citations typically appear in two formats: a) as in-text citations where the sources of information are briefly identified in the text; or b) in the reference list at the end of the publication (book chapter, manuscript, article, etc.) that provides full bibliographic information for each source. Group of publishers met in Vancouver in 1978 and decided to prescribe uniform technical propositions for publication. Adopted in the 1979 by the National Library of Medicine in Bethesda, then the International Committee of Medical Journals Editors (ICMJE), whose review in 1982 entered the official application by 300 international biomedical journals. Authors writing articles for publication in biomedical publications used predominantly citation styles: Vancouver style, Harward style, PubMed style, ICMJE, APA, etc. The paper gives examples of all of these styles of citation to the authors in order to facilitate their applications. Also in this paper is given the review about the problem of plagiarism which becomes more common in the writing of scientific and technical articles in biomedicine.
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 | 0.133 | 0.574 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.041 | 0.058 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.036 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.012 |
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".