Guidelines for submitting articles to the Portuguese Journal of General Practice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Portuguese Journal of General Practice accepts for publication articles of basic research, epidemiological, clinical, administration on health care or on education, as well as review articles, articles on practice, case reports, opinion articles and other that may contribute to the development of the specialty of general practice or for the improvement of primary health care. Articles should be written in Portuguese, may be accepted in exceptional texts in English or Spanish. Articles submitted must not have been any other publication, or have been simultaneously submitted for publication in other magazines or newspapers. The opinions expressed are the sole responsibility of the authors. The articles published are the sole property of the Portuguese Journal of General Practice and may not be reproduced in whole or in part, without prior permission of the Director. The Portuguese Journal of Medicine supports the requirements of the standards of Vancouver, whose last published revision is translated into Portuguese and published in Revista1, and in its latest version is on the website of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors2. It is recommended to authors for your perusal. These standards are published annually in the Portuguese Journal of General Practice, in effect considering the last published version. The quotations in this release should be made by the following reference: Editorial Board RPCG. Guidelines for submitting articles to the Portuguese Journal of General Practice. Rev Port General Clin 2005; 21:99-104. This document is not protected by copyright and may be copied or reprinted without permission.
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.
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 | 0.056 | 0.259 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it