MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084990942 · doi:10.1002/ajhb.10061

Midsagittal facial soft‐tissue growth of French Canadian adolescents

2002· article· en· W2084990942 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shelley L. Smith, Peter H. Buschang

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Human Biology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinForeheadNasionNoseGlabellaSoft tissueCephalometryOrthodonticsMedicineAnatomySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines changes in 12 midline soft-tissue thicknesses from the forehead, nose, lip, and chin regions in girls and boys from 10 to 16 years of age. The soft-tissue changes are compared to changes in two hard-tissue distances (sella-nasion and nasion-menton). The subjects are from a mixed-longitudinal sample studied at the Montreal Human Growth Research Center in the 1960s and 1970s. Total sample size is 242 (from lateral cephalographs of 124 males and 118 females), with numbers varying by age and measurement. For hard-tissues, boys show clearly defined adolescent spurts, while girls display small velocity increases indicative of only very minor spurts. Forehead tissue thicknesses for both sexes change little and show no demonstrable growth spurts. For the nose and philtrum region, which have the greatest absolute soft-tissue growth changes, both boys and girls show adolescent spurts. Peak velocities are attained between 13 and 14 years in boys and between 11.9 and 12.5 years in girls. Boys appear to have small adolescent spurts for upper (13.7 years) and perhaps lower lip thicknesses. Neither sex displays clear evidence for adolescent spurts in the chin region.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations20
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Human BiologySame topicOrthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsFrench-language works237,207