MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2236608270

Collaborative Citation Analysis and Accuracy Degree of Vancouver Style Application in References Of The Scientific Journal of Birjand University Of Medical Sciences: Short Communication

2015· article· en· W2236608270 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
halimeh sadeghi, Masomeh Jalaeefar, Gholamreza Sharifzadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Health Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitationDegree (music)Style (visual arts)Citation analysisComputer scienceLibrary scienceInformation retrievalGeographyArchaeologyPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Aim: The journals are communication links between authors and subject specialists. The aim of the current study was assessing the citation analysis and accuracy degree of applying vancouver style in the references of the scientific journal of Birjand University of Medical Sciences. Materials and Methods: This study was a cross-sectional and randomized sampling investigation. A total of 168 articles which was published in the Journal of Birjand University of Medical Sciences between 2006 and 2012 were assessed. In these articles, collaboration coefficient, citation and applying Vancouver style in referencing were taken into accoun using a checklist and original references. The obtained results were analyzed. applying SPSS software(V: 18) and using T-test. Results: The articles studied had cited to 3634 sources each of which had cited to the average of 21.6 sources. The most Citation (i.e.82.3%) were to journal articles and 84.1% of the citations were to English ones. The highest percent of the articles were in the domain of health and collaboration coefficient was 0.7. Conclusion: It was found that in the bibliography Of the cited English articles, Vancouver style had not been applied completely, which should be paid attention to by scholars in their initial surveying of the articles.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaMetaresearchResearch integrity
Domain: Reporting · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptBibliometricsScholarly communication
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.602
GPT teacher head0.656
Teacher spread0.054 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

MetaresearchResearch integrityBibliometricsScholarly communication

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational
DomainReporting
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicOphthalmology and Visual Health ResearchCategoryMetaresearchFrench-language works237,207