Las referencias en artículos publicados en revistas biomédicas
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
Bibliographic citations or "references" are an important component of all scientific manuscripts. The authors are responsible for their accuracy and they should follow the format and style requested by the journal where they are submitting their paper. Revista Médica de Chile adheres to the "Uniform Requirements" established by the Vancouver Group of Medical Editors. Equally important is a correct choice of references, including those original articles strictly connected to the content of the manuscript. The number of citations usually vary according to the specific character of the study: research article, or case reports, review article, etc. Common mistakes are due to an excessive number of repetitive or irrelevant citations, or the omission of important articles sometimes not found in bibliographic indexes, or an erroneous claim of priority in reporting an observation. Finally, in developing countries the authors should include previous reports appeared in their own local journals, therefore improving their opportunities of achieving international visibility. (Rev Med Chile 2001; 129: 343-5)
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.001 |
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