MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2278322689

A Survey of Accuracy of Cited Articles Based Theses of Medical Specialities Students in Tehran University of Medical Sciences

2009· article· en· W2278322689 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M Gharib, Reyhaneh Vaez, F Azadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical educationMedical scienceMathematics educationPsychologyLibrary scienceMedicineComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Aim: Citation could be considered as basis of scientific researches. Each researcher will use citation to prove his scientific findings either to be in correspondence with truth or to familiarize readers with more references. Maintenance and continuation of informational link by citation is essential. Theses are not exceptional for this subject. This study was done to review the accuracy of cited articles of specialized theses (Tehran University of Medical Sciences in 1386) and the rate of correspondence with Vancouver style.Materials and Methods: Citation analysis is used as study approach. By systematic sampling and Morgan table 357 cited articles were selected to review for accuracy of citation and their correspondence with Vancouver style. Six studied factors are as following: Name of author(s), title of article, title of journal, year of Publishing, volume number, number of pages. Citation errors are divided in to two main groups: 1-Minor errors 2-Major errors. Method of sampling is direct observation. Data was entered in a check list, based on Taylor division. SPSS(11.0) software was used to analysis.Results: Out of all 357 reviewed cited articles, totally 111.4% citation errors were observed and only 136 (38.09%) of citations had no error and 221(62%) citations had errors. 9.8% of citations fully corresponded with Vancouver style.Discussion and Conclusions: Main reasons of dissatisfying results of citation errors and rate of correspondence with Vancouver style are as follows: Student's unawareness of importance of scientific researches consistence Laxity of students about citification produce, inaccessibility to original references and copy of other sources.Teacher's less emphasis on accuracy of citation, carelessness of educational universities about accuracy of citation in thesis, not use of experts and specialized librarians for consultation, being not familiar with reference management software.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.161
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.161
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.431
GPT teacher head0.619
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicHealth and Well-being Studies→French-language works237,207→