MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014098209 · doi:10.14295/biblos.v33i2.8390

Referências em livros e artigos de periódicos: uma comparação de estilos

2019· article· pt· W3014098209 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBIBLOS · 2019
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation Science and Libraries
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Referenciar é identificar individualmente um documento com base em orientações de estilos que orientam entre outras coisas a citação e as referências. O objetivo do artigo foi identificar os principais estilos, suas características na descrição de referências como a formatação da autoria pessoa física; uso do ““et al””; destaque tipográfico a abreviação de títulos de periódicos. Foram analisados oito estilos que em sua maioria possuem custo para acesso ao texto completo. O sistema autor-data é comum; os estilos variam muito em relação ao uso do ““et al””; a caixa alta foi observada na ISO 690 e NBR 6023; os estilos APA, CSE, MLA, Chicago, Harvard e Vancouver são simples; favorecem o conteúdo e são de custo acessível.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.775
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.010

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.239 · 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