MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2338557182

Oral Health Behaviour of Adolescents: a Comparative Study in 35 Countries

2004· article· en· W2338557182 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Apolinaras Zaborskis, Simona Milčiuvienė, Eglė Aida Bendoraitienė, Aistė Zaborskytė

Bibliographic record

VenueLithuanian University of Health Sciences · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversitetet i Bergen
KeywordsEnvironmental healthNorwegianMedicineDietingConsumption (sociology)DemographyOral healthGeographyObesityDentistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study is part of the Cross-National Survey on Health Behaviour in School-aged Children – World Health Organization Collaborative Study, which started in 1982. Objectives: The aim of this study was to describe the health behaviour patterns related to oral health (toothbrushing and dieting) in cross-national perspective and access its interrelations at the level of individuals and at the level of countries. Materials: The samples represent 11-15-year-old schoolchildren from 32 countries of Europe, Israel, Canada, and the USA in 2001-2002 school-year. Methods: The research was carried out according to the methodology of the HBSC study using the anonymous standardized questionnaire. Frequencies of toothbrushing and consumption of sweets, soft drinks, fruits and vegetables were estimated in the present study. Age standardized data in aggregated samples of 11-15-years-olds were used for the comparisons across countries. Relationships between variables were estimated both at the individual’s level and at the country’s level. Results: The toothbrushing habits apparently were best in Switzerland, Norway and Sweden, as the proportion of children who reported toothbrushing more than once a day was higher than 74% of boys ...

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations11
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLithuanian University of Health SciencesSame topicDental Health and Care UtilizationFrench-language works237,207