Використання антиплагіатних програм у роботі редакції наукових журналів Харківського національного медичного університету: важливі акценти для авторів
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
<strong>Цитуйте українською у Vancouver style:</strong> [Шевченко ОС. Використання антиплагіатних програм у роботі редакції наукових журналів Харківського національного медичного університету: важливі акценти для авторів. Презентація. Вебінар "Антиплагіат-стратегія ХНМУ: поради авторам та експертам" (Україна, Харків, 17 Січ 2023). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7537975]. Презентація на youtube: https://youtu.be/Tj_js6rE-RQ <strong>Cite in English in Vancouver style: </strong>[Shevchenko AS. The use of anti-plagiarism programs in the editorial work of scientific journals of the Kharkiv National Medical University: important points for authors. Presentation. Webinar "Anti-plagiarism strategy of KhNMU: advice to authors and experts" (Ukraine, Kharkiv, 17 Jan 2023). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7537975 [in Ukrainian]]. Presentation on youtube: https://youtu.be/Tj_js6rE-RQ [in Ukrainian].
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.169 |
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