Lay person’s perception of smile aesthetics in dental and facial views
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
OBJECTIVE: To compare the aesthetic perception of different anterior visible occlusions in different facial and dental views (frontal view, lower facial third view and dental view) by lay persons. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey, Lima, Peru, 2002. SUBJECTS: The different views were rated by 91 randomly selected adult lay persons. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) ratings of aesthetic perception of the views. RESULTS: Anterior visible occlusion, photographed subject and view (p<0.001) had a significant effect on the aesthetic ratings. Also gender (p=0.001) and the interaction between gender and level of education (p=0.046) had a significant effect over the aesthetic rating. CONCLUSIONS: A lay panel perceived that the aesthetic impact of the visible anterior occlusion was greater in a dental view compared with a full facial view. The anterior visible occlusion, photographed subject, view type are factors, which influence the aesthetic perception of smiles. In addition, gender and level of education had an influence.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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