MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142413327 · doi:10.1001/archfaci.8.5.324

The Lip-Cheek Groove

2006· review· en· W2142413327 on OpenAlexaff
Naznin Karsan, David A.F. Ellis

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Facial Plastic Surgery · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFacial Rejuvenation and Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCheekMedicineGroove (engineering)DentistryOrthodonticsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To present a clinical classification of the lip-cheek groove. DESIGN: The clinical classification, which is based on years of analysis, will provide optimal management options for achieving the greatest degree of correction and rejuvenation of the lip-cheek groove. RESULTS: The use of the clinical classification of the lip-cheek groove will guide the surgeon to the management option(s) that will attain the best aesthetic outcome. CONCLUSION: The classification of the lip-cheek groove enables the surgeon to choose the optimal approach for improvement of the groove.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Facial Plastic SurgerySame topicFacial Rejuvenation and Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207