The results of Canada's National Capital Region 1999-2000 dental X-ray survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Radiation Protection Bureau of Health Canada conducted a dental X-ray survey during the winter 1999-2000. The purpose was to obtain information on the present state of dental radiology, patient radiation exposure and the performance of dental X-ray procedures and equipment (intra-oral, cephalometric and panoramic units as well as the processors). Letters requesting voluntary participation in the survey and a short questionnaire to obtain preliminary details (e.g. type of practice, radiation safety procedures established by the clinic, type of films used, workload and number of units) were sent to randomly selected clinics in the Ottawa Region. Upon receiving a positive answer, an inspection team made arrangements to visit the facility. The Inspection consisted of measuring entrance skin dose (ESD), half-value layer (HVL), tube voltage, irradiation time and field size of dental X-ray units. Darkroom fog, processing speed, developer temperature and development time measurements were performed on the processors. An intra-oral phantom was used to measure the film resolution and the optical density of low contrast objects under the facility's standard technique for an adult intraoral examination of the first upper molar. It generally took 15 minutes per unit or processor to perform the measurements. Results from more than 200 intra-oral units, 60 processors and a few panoramic and cephalometric units are presented.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".