MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W88963155

Expresión escrita y trabajos científicos

2003· article· es· W88963155 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2003
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Las normas de la American Psychological Associution (APA) y las normas de Vancouver son las más reconocidas por la comunidad científica internacional. En este artículo nos centramos en las normas de la APA ya que actualmente son las más utilizadas y sirven de guía a todos los investigadores para presentar sus escritos, si pertenecen a las más variadas áreas de conocimiento. Los investigadores de las ciencias médicas y de la salud se rigen, frecuentemente, por las normas de Vancouver. Se exponen las reglas más comunes y las que más frecuentemente se infringen en los trabajos escritos, completándolas con algunas sugerencias para el uso correcto de la lengua castellana. Este artículo no exime, al autor de cualquier trabajo científico, de leer el Manual de estilo de publicaciones de la APA o de conocer, al menos en su esencia, las normas de Vancouver.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0940.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.469
GPT teacher head0.679
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it