Documentación y corrección: la carta de presentación, algo más que simple protocolo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1978 the international committee of directors of medical magazines met informally in Vancouver, British Columbia (Canada), to establish, for the first time, the guidelines that, in relation to the format, the manuscripts sent to their magazines should contemplate. The group became known as Vancouver group. Their “Requirements of uniformity for the manuscripts sent to Biomedical Magazines” were published for the first time in 1979. In november of 2003 the committee published the last version, the sixth, in which the included topics go beyond the preparation of the manuscript. In any case, this last version of the “Vancouver Norms” makes expressed reference to the ethical aspects that converge when sending to publish a work. These ethical manifestations should be made explicit in the presentation letter, to which the new requirements give a special emphasis. It is necessary to establish a debate on the execution of the requirements of uniformity, as well as to begin, to continue and to vivify the reflection on the transcendence that supposes to fulfil them, with the purpose of facilitating the methodological normalization of the works subjected to publication.
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 | 0.206 | 0.356 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.032 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".