El cuestionable empleo del gerundio en la redacción científica de los profesionales de la salud
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: in the scientific writing there are numerous inaccuracies that cause errors and amphibologies in the messages, including the incorrect use of the gerund, a questioned sign and even rejected by some researchers.Objective: to characterize the use of the gerund in the scientific writing of some health professionals.Methods: a descriptive investigation was carried out in the Faculty of Technology - Nursing, in Villa Clara, from20 18 to the first quarter of 2019. Theoretical methods were used: analysis-synthesis and induction-deduction; Empirical ones: documentary review as a source of primary data, questionnaire survey applied to professionals and discourse analysis in the scientific articles analyzed; and mathematics for numerical data.Results: the correct use of simultaneous and peripheral gerund was found, essentially with being; also the explanatory and ilocutive; in other situations they use it incorrectly: repeated, with subsequent action and adjective function. Some rejection was perceived towards its use in scientific documents, due to certain entrenched dogmatic conceptions, which led to questioning among researchers.Conclusions: the need for language improvement is reaffirmed, in which the use of the gerund is encouraged as an element that brings diverse nuances to the scientific text.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".