Diretrizes para apresentação de dissertações e teses da USP: parte IV (Vancouver) 2.ed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O Sistema Integrado de Bibliotecas da Universidade de São Paulo – SIBi/USP, dentre suas propostas voltadas à padronização dos trabalhos científicos, publica trabalhos no sentido de orientar os alunos de pós-graduação na elaboração de suas teses e dissertações geradas na Universidade. Neste sentido, dando sequência a este trabalho, traz a público a atualização das “Diretrizes para apresentação de dissertações e teses da USP: documento eletrônico e impresso”. Para facilitar a consulta às normas o Grupo responsável pela atualização elaborou o trabalho em quatro partes, cada parte enfocando uma norma específica: Parte I (ABNT – Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas), Parte II (APA – American Psychological Association), Parte III (ISO – International Organization for Standardization) e Parte IV (Vancouver). Este documento apresenta a 2ª edição revisada das Diretrizes publicada em 2009, de acordo com a norma Vancouver atualizada.
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 | 0.032 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.019 |
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".