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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.218
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.218
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0540.052
Science and technology studies0.0110.008
Scholarly communication0.0240.009
Open science0.0050.015
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.016

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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainReporting
GenreMethods

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