MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012453464 · doi:10.1159/000261177

Dental Caries Diagnosis Calibration for Clinical Field Surveys

2009· article· en· W2012453464 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCaries Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Radiography and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReproducibilityDentistryMedicineOrthodonticsCalibrationMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A method to calibrate examiners for field studies of dental caries was investigated. A total of 200 carious teeth were mounted in 40 plaster blocks so that 920 surfaces were available for examination with a curved probe, using WHO criteria. The results of two examinations of the teeth 1 week apart by 3 experienced and 4 new examiners and 1 year apart by two experienced examiners were compared. The intra-examiner and inter-examiner reproducibility was high for the experienced examiners; between experienced and new examiners the reproducibility fluctuated. Scanning electron microscopic examination of the tips of probes indicated that the sharpness was only slightly decreased within their usual frequency of use. The calibration system used is recommended for the training of examiners for dental caries field studies.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.167
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.316 · 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