MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Criterios de Vancouver: Cómo citar y presentar referencias en documentos académicos

2021· article· es· W3179257339 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vı́ctor Manuel Mendoza-Núñez

Bibliographic record

VenueCasos y Revisiones de Salud · 2021
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Una cita bibliográfica es la especificación (número o autor/año) que se inserta en el texto para identificar la fuente que sustenta los datos, aseveraciones, ideas, teorías o investigaciones que se presentan o analizan en los documentos. Por otro lado, las referencias bibliográficas son los datos completos (autores, titulo, datos editoriales) de un documento académico (libro, artículo, tesis, memoria) o páginas web de organismos internacionales, universidades o asociaciones profesionales, con reconocimiento académico. En este sentido, los datos incluidos deben garantizar que el documento o información de la página web pueden ser recuperados para verificar lo señalado en el documento académico o científico que se esté elaborando. 1 Las referencias completas se listan al final del documento elaborado.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.462
Teacher spread0.419 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCasos y Revisiones de SaludSame topicHealth and Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207