Bibliographic record
Abstract
La Revista El Antoniano de la Universidad Nacional de San Antonio Abad del Cusco continua difundiendo los articulos elaborados por investigadores de la region y del pais. La publicacion de un articulo tiene un proceso que esta delineadas por normas internacionales de calidad y de redaccion cientifica, como son las normas de Vancouver, y de la American Psychological Association (APA) y la Revista El Antoniano hace uso de esas normas. El tramite es el siguiente, recibido un articulo, este es revisado por el Comite Editorial, que informa si el articulo cumple las normas minimas establecidas, si las cumple, el articulo pasa al Comite Consultivo que esta integrado por investigadores en diferentes especialidades tanto locales nacionales e internacionales, que se encargan del proceso de revision por pares, para revisar y analizar profundamente el articulo y dan una serie de recomendaciones para mejoralo. Todo este proceso es anonimo, los autores no saben quien va evaluar su articulo, los evaluadores no saben quien es el autor del articulo. El proceso es un tanto complicado, hay articulos muy especializados que hace dificil encontrar un evaluador local, y tenemos que buscar en otras instituciones nacionales o internacionales.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.091 | 0.038 |
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".