Fator de impacto: importância e influência no meio editorial, acadêmico e científico
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this report the authors present information on the bibliometric instruments and their importance in measuring the quality of scientific journals and researchers. They in particular the history and deployment of the impact factor of the existing Institute for Scientific Information since 1955. Are presented and discussed the criticism regarding the inadequacy of the impact factor for evaluation of scientific production, misuse and strategies editorial handling of the bibliometric index. It is presented to the new classification CAPES for the journals, based on various criteria and the impact factor and its influence on national scientific and academic life. The authors conclude that, despite all obstacles and discussions, the impact factor of the Institute for Scientific Information is still an useful tool and the only isolation available to assess the scientific and intellectual productivity.
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.
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 | 0.131 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.061 | 0.106 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 it