MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nursing research and bibliographic citation models

2009· article· en· W2155026847 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jordi Piqué Angordans, Ramón Camaño Puig, Carmen Piqué-Noguera

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAcademic Writing and Publishing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublicationCitationNursing researchMedical journalLibrary scienceCitation analysisMedical researchPsychologyMedicineNursingComputer sciencePolitical scienceLawPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research focuses on the analysis of how nursing journals publish their papers. Basically, two models are analyzed, Vancouver, by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, and APA by the American Psychological Association. Their advantages and disadvantages are discussed. In view of how research papers are currently published and how research is judged, the authors propose that nursing journals adopt their own model, irrespective of how medical professionals publish.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.056
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.278
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0560.278
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0610.111
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0220.025
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.005

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 head0.172
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainEvaluation
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Latino-Americana de EnfermagemSame topicAcademic Writing and PublishingFrench-language works237,207