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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.109 |
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".