Precisión de las referencias bibliográficas de los Trabajos de Fin de Grado en Enfermería
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: to identify the quality of the bibliography used by students in their 4th year of the Nursing Degree at the School of Nursing, Physiotherapy and Chiropody of the Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Method: the study was conducted through the selection and evaluation of information sources and references from journal articles in 26 Final Degree Projects (FDPs), in order to determine their conformity with the Vancouver Standards, because this is the quotation system more widely used in Health Sciences publications, and recommended by the professors responsible for education and follow-up of FDP groups. Results: out of 957 references in total, there was a selection of 604 (63.11%) journal articles, and 1.545 errors (2.55 per reference) were detected and classified. The group of those with the best scores presented 17.05% of correct references, vs. 9.13% for the group with the worst score. Conclusions: low accuracy in references was found in both groups. However, the projects with higher scores provided more references, higher use of scientific journals, higher agreement with Vancouver Standards, and lower number of errors.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".