MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068751965 · doi:10.1051/orthodfr/2014027

La recherche de l’excellence en orthodontie de l’adulte : entretien avec Bjørn U. Zachrisson

2014· article· fr· W2068751965 on OpenAlexaff
Björn U. Zachrisson, Philippe Amat

Bibliographic record

VenueL Orthodontie Française · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldDentistry
TopicOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Canadian institutionsNortel (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bjørn U. Zachrisson est Professeur Émérite au sein du Département d’Orthodontie de l’Université d’Oslo (Norvège). Il conserve à Oslo une pratique libérale consacrée aux traitements de l’adulte. Il a rédigé plus de 270 articles cliniques et scientifiques, publiés dans des revues internationales et dans des manuels d’orthodontie, de parodontologie, de traumatologie et de dentisterie générale. Il a représenté l’orthodontie européenne à l’occasion de multiples congrès à travers le monde. Il a présenté de nombreuses conférences magistrales et donné des cours pendant les congrès internationaux. Bjørn U. Zachrisson a reçu toutes les récompenses essentielles en orthodontie, y compris le prix Ketcham et Jaraback décerné par l’American Association of Orthodontics. Il est co-rédacteur du Journal of Clinical Orthodontics, rédacteur et auteur de «Ask an Expert» dans le World Journal of Orthodontics. Il collabore à l’Editorial Board of the Seminars in Orthodontics, à l’Angle Orthodontist, au World Journal of Orthodontics, à la Revista Dental Press de Ortodontia e Ortopedia and Revista Clinica de Ortodontia (Brésil), à l’Italian Journal of Orthodontics, ainsi qu’à l’European Journal of Esthetic Dentistry.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0060.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueL Orthodontie FrançaiseSame topicOrthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsFrench-language works237,207