Collaborative Citation Analysis and Accuracy Degree of Vancouver Style Application in References Of The Scientific Journal of Birjand University Of Medical Sciences: Short Communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | MetaresearchResearch integrity Domain: Reporting · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | BibliometricsScholarly communication Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.017 | 0.141 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".