Requisitos uniformes para originais submetidos a Revistas Biomédicas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Um pequeno grupo de editores de revistas da área médica reuniu-se informalmente em Vancouver, Colúmbia Britânica, em 1978, para estabelecer diretrizes para o formato dos originais submetidos a suas revistas. Esse grupo ficou conhecido como o Grupo de Vancouver. Seus requisitos para apresentação de originais, que incluíam os formatos de referências bibliográficas desenvolvidos pela Biblioteca Nacional de Medicina (National Library of Medicine - NLM), foram publicados pela primeira vez em 1979. O Grupo de Vancouver se expandiu e evoluiu para o Comitê Internacional de Editores de Revistas Médicas (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors - ICMJE), que se reúne anualmente. Gradualmente, este comitê vem ampliando seus alvos de atenção. O comitê produziu quatro edições prévias dos requisitos uniformes. Ao longo dos anos, surgiram questões que vão além da preparação dos originais. Algumas delas são tratadas agora nos requisitos uniformes; outras são contempladas em pareceres separados. Cada parecer foi publicado em uma revista científica; todos estão reproduzidos no final deste artigo.
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 | 0.059 | 0.213 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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".