MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3179775030 · doi:10.24875/acm.m19000044

Autoría: del crédito a la responsabilidad - Reflexiones de la red de editores

2019· article· es· W3179775030 on OpenAlexaff
Fernándo Alfonso, Parounak Zelveian, Jean-Jacques Monsuez, Michael Aschermann, Michael Boehm, Alfonso Buendía-Hernández, Tzung‐Dau Wang, Ariel Cohen, Sebija Izetbegović, Anton Doubell, Darío Echeverri, Nuray Enç, Ignacio Ferreira‐González, Anetta Undas, Ulrike Fortmüller, Plamen Gatzov, Carmen Ginghină, Lino M. Gonçalves, Faouzi Addad, Mahmoud Hassanein, Gerd Heusch, Kurt Huber, Róbert Hatala, Mario Ivanuša, Chu-Pak Lau, Germanas Marinskis, Livio Dei-Cas, Carlos Eduardo Rochitte, Kjell Nikus, Eckart Fleck, Luc Piérard, Slobodan Obradović, María del P. Aguilar-Passano, Yangsoo Jang, Olaf Rødevand, Mikael Sander, Е. V. Shlyakhto, Çetin Erol, Dimitris Tousoulis, Dilek Ural, Jan J. Piek, Albert Varga, Andreas J. Flammer François Mach, Alban Dibra, Faiq Guliyev, Alexander Mrochek, Mamanti Rogava, Ismael Guzmán-Melgar, Giuseppe Di Pasquale, Kanat Kabdrakhmanov, Laila Haddour, Zlatko Fras, Claes Held, Valentyn Shumakov

Bibliographic record

VenueArchivos de cardiología de México · 2019
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Canadian institutionsCanadian Journal of Communication (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical journalPolitical scienceAccountabilityQuality (philosophy)Library scienceMedicineComputer scienceLawPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Editors' Network of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) provides a dynamic forum for editorial discussions and endorses the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) to improve the scientific quality of biomedical journals. Authorship confers credit and important academic rewards. Recently, however, the ICMJE emphasized that authorship also requires responsibility and accountability. These issues are now covered by the new -(fourth) criterion for authorship. Authors should agree to be accountable and ensure that questions regarding the accuracy and integrity of the entire work will be appropriately addressed. This review discusses the implications of this paradigm shift on authorship requirements with the aim of increasing awareness on good scientific and editorial practices.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.665
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.160
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.366 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchivos de cardiología de MéxicoSame topicPharmaceutical industry and healthcareFrench-language works237,207