MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W218236865

Interchangeability of two semiadjustable articulators.

2001· article· en· W218236865 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Bengt Price, Jack D. Gerrow, Robert W. Loney, Pantelis Andreou

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental materials and restorations
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterchangeabilityWhip (tree)ArticulatorComputer scienceOrthodonticsMedicineEngineeringMechanical engineeringGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Interchangeability between articulators allows mounted casts to be transferred accurately from one articulator to another. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the interchangeability of 109 new, unused interchangeable articulators in the centric position. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The interchangeability of 38 unused Whip Mix model #2240 and 71 unused model #3040 semiadjustable articulators was evaluated using the Whip Mix #2245 check system as the standard. Vertical discrepancies between the check system cylinders were also measured. RESULTS: Within the standard for interchangeability established by the Whip Mix #2245 check system (< 94 microns horizontal discrepancy), 101 (93%) of 109 articulators were interchangeable (34 were model #2240 and 67 were model #3040). Overall, the amount of vertical space between the check system cylinders was < or = 52 microns in 99.4% of the model #2240 articulators and 99.7% of the #3040 articulators. CONCLUSION: New, unused Whip Mix model #2240 and #3040 articulators are potentially interchangeable in the centric position.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicDental materials and restorationsFrench-language works237,207