Características de las tesis de pregrado de Obstetricia de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos 2018-2022
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
Determina las características de las tesis de pregrado de Obstetricia \nde la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos 2018-2022. Es un estudio descriptivo, cuantitativo, observacional, \ntransversal, retrospectivo de fuentes secundarias. La población de 221 tesis de \npregrado de Obstetricia. La técnica fue documental y se utilizó una ficha de \nrecolección de datos. En los resultados, las características generales fueron, el 92.8% de los tesistas eran \nde sexo femenino, el 7.2% eran de sexo masculino, el 100% de las tesis tenían \nun solo autor, el 69.2% publicó su tesis en Cybertesis. Además, un total de 221 \ntesis de pregrado se sustentaron del 2018 al 2022, en el 2018 se sustentaron el \n27.15% tesis del total; el 2019, 31.22%; el 2020, 12.22%; el 2021, 16.29% y el \n2022, 13.12%. Se concluye que las características más frecuentes de las tesis son tesistas \nmujeres, con un solo autor, desarrollando tesis correlacionales, cuantitativas, \nobservacionales, prospectivas y transversales, investigando más sobre salud \nmaterna, siendo el año 2019 con mayor cantidad de tesis.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 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