Contribution Of Hacettepe University Faculty Of Medicine To The World'S Biomedical Literature (1988-1997)
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 contribution of Turkish researchers to sciences is increasing. Turkish scientists publishedmore than 6.000 articles in 1999 in scientific journals indexed by the Institute for Scientific Information’s Science Citation Index, which puts Turkey to the 25th place in the world rankings interms of total contribution to science. The number of biomedical publications authored by Turkishscientists is increasing faster than that of engineering and other non-medical sciences, whichmight be one of the main causes of the steep rise in Turkey’s rankings that we have been witnessing in recent years. More specifically, researchers affiliated with Hacettepe Universityproduce almost a quarter of all the biomedical publications of Turkey that appear in international biomedical literature. In this paper, we report the findings of the bibliometric characteristics (authors and affiliations, medical journals and their impact factors, among others) of a total of 1.434 articlespublished between 1988 and 1997 by scientists affiliated with Hacettepe University Faculty ofMedicine and indexed in MEDLINE, a well-known biomedical bibliographic database.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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