MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Canadian orthodontist Internet user profile.

2006· article· en· W2175529652 on OpenAlexaffabout
Neal G. Palmer, James R. Yacyshyn, Herbert C. Northcott, Brian Nebbe, Carlos Flores‐Mir, Paul W. Major

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media in Health Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe InternetInternet accessOddsOdds ratioMedicineWork (physics)Computer scienceLogistic regressionWorld Wide WebEngineeringInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An anonymous, self-administered, mail-out survey of Canadian Orthodontists was conducted to evaluate the characteristics of orthodontic Internet use. The response rate was 45.6% (304 of 667). A total of 76.6% of orthodontists reported having Internet access at work, and an additional 12.4% reported having Internet access from a different location. Statistically significant associations between Internet usage and office staff size (P < .001) and years of practice (P = .046) were observed. Offices with larger staffs had greater Internet access. Number of staffs and number of case starts were positively correlated (P < .001, r = 0.498). The odds ratio for having Internet access on the basis of increased case starts from the less than 100 to 300-399 categories was 5.67. Although not statistically significant, there was a trend for greater Internet access by younger practitioners.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.003

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicSocial Media in Health Education→French-language works237,207→