Implants and/or teeth: consensus statements and recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In August 23-25, 2007, the Scandinavian Society for Prosthetic Dentistry in collaboration with the Danish Society of Oral Implantology arranged a consensus conference on the topic 'Implants and/or teeth'. It was preceded by a workshop in which eight focused questions were raised and answered in eight review articles using a systematic approach. Twenty-eight academicians and clinicians discussed the eight review papers with the purpose to reach consensus on questions relevant for the topic. At the conference the consensus statements were presented as well as lectures based on the review articles. In this article the methods used at the consensus workshop are briefly described followed by the statements with comments.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.257 | 0.420 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.027 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".