MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085296991 · doi:10.1080/00219266.2014.923485

Experimental Activities in Primary School to Learn about Microbes in an Oral Health Education Context

2014· article· en· W2085296991 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Paulo Mafra, Nélson Lima, Graça Simões de Carvalho

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Education · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Research and COVID-19
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaInternational Council for Canadian Studies
KeywordsContext (archaeology)DentistryDental healthTooth brushingOral healthPsychologyMedicineBiologyEngineeringToothbrushBrush

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experimental science activities in primary school enable important cross-curricular learning. In this study, experimental activities on microbiology were carried out by 16 pupils in a Portuguese grade-4 classroom (9–10 years old) and were focused on two problem-questions related to microbiology and health: (1) do your teeth carry microbes? (2) why should you brush your teeth after meals? To solve problem-question (1), children’s samples of dental plaque were prepared and observed under the microscope. For question (2), culture medium plates were inoculated with children’s dental plaque either before or after tooth brushing and the colonies were counted. Results showed that pupils easily recognised the presence of microorganisms in the mouth and verified the effectiveness of the process of teeth-brushing. Pupils understood that microorganisms were potentially responsible for the onset of dental caries. These practical activities on microbiology in primary school were very effective in ensuring young children easily understand the causes of dental caries and how they can be prevented. Pupils became aware that the act of brushing their teeth is not only a socially correct behaviour or a simple rule to meet, but also a matter of preventing illness and promoting health.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.373 · 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

Citations25
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological EducationSame topicDental Research and COVID-19French-language works237,207