Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resume Le radiodiagnostic dentaire represente plus de la moitie des actes radiologiques des pays developpes, mais une faible part de l'exposition aux rayons X en raison de la petite quantite de rayons X delivree par chaque acte. Le risque essentiel attribue a cette activite est l'induction de cancers a long terme car le risque teratogene et le risque genetique sont nuls eu egard a l'insignifiance des doses delivrees a l'uterus et aux organes genitaux. Pour le risque cancerogene associe a ces faibles doses de rayonnement, les donnees epidemiologiques ne sont pas probantes mais les instances internationales pronent un modele de calcul de risque extrapole des effets des fortes doses de rayonnement sous forme d'une relation lineaire sans seuil pour ne pas sous-estimer le risque. L'estimation et la mention sur le compte rendu de la dose delivree par tout examen radiologique sont dorenavant obligatoires et inscrites dans le Code de sante publique par la transposition de la directive Euratom 97/43. Les doses delivrees par les examens usuels du radiodiagnostic dentaire sont indiquees et les effets potentiels de ces doses mis en perspective. Le respect des principes de justification et d'optimisation permet de pratiquer le radiodiagnostic dentaire en toute serenite.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.981 | 0.985 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".