Bibliographic record
Abstract
· A list of references contains details only of those works cited in the text. · A bibliography lists sources not cited in the text but which are relevant to the subject and were used for background reading. · Before you compile your bibliography/reference list check with your lecturer/tutor for the bibliographic style preferred by the Academic Department. · A citation is an acknowledgement in your text of references that support your work. It is in the form of a number that correlates with a source in your reference list. · There are many ways of setting out bibliographies and reference lists. The following are examples of one style – the Vancouver System. It is commonly used in medical and scientific journals. · Your reference list should identify references cited (eg. book, journal article, pamphlet, internet site, cassette tape or film) in sufficient detail so that others may locate and consult your references. · Your reference list should appear at the end of your essay/report with the entries listed numerically and in the same order that they have been cited in the text. · If you have cited sources from the Internet, these should be in your reference list. · The bibliography is a separate list from the reference list and should be arranged alphabetically by author or title (where no author is given) in the Vancouver Style. · Punctuation marks and spaces in the reference list and citations are very important. Follow the punctuation and spacing exactly in the examples given.
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 | 0.005 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.728 | 0.705 |
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".