A Comparative Study on the Usage Degree of Vancouver Style and ISO-Standards of the Specialized Doctoral Theses of KUMS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this research is to determine and compare the degree of the usage of Vancouver style and ISO Standards on the specialized doctoral theses of Kerman University of Medical Sciences. The collection of 205 theses under study, acquired from 1989 until June 2000 in the fields of orthopedics, pediatrics, anesthesiology, pathology, dermatology, general surgery, neurosurgery, ophthalmology, internal diseaes, radiology, psychiatry, gynecology, otOlaryngOlOgy, and neurology. \n\nThe information was gathered by a check-list and the findings have been demonstrated in tables and diagrams. The research results show: \n\n- In all studied theses, the usage degree of Vancouver style is used(70.8%) and the ISO-Standards is \n\n(53.6%). \n\n- The usage degree of Vancouver style in Psychiatry theses (80.2%) and Neurology (77.9%) were - The usage degree of ISO-Standards in ophthalmology theses (57.7%) and Gynecology (57.1%) were more than the other fields. \n\n- In the "Methods" (76.7%) and "Conclusions" sections(75.3%) Vancouver style was used more than the other sections and the "Title Page" section(74.5%) have used ISO-Standards more than the other sections. \n\nThe test of the research hypothesis showed that in specialized doctoral theses of Kerman University of Medical Sciences,there is a significant difference between Vancouver and \n\nWith regard to the research findings, based on Vancouver style and ISO Standards, It is recommended that a national persian theses-writting standard should be compiled and selected for medical sciences universities all over the country.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".