MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2413024183

Edentulism and denture use.

2005· article· en· W2413024183 on OpenAlexaffabout
W J Millar, David Locker

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEdentulismTooth lossMedicinePopulationDentistryDemographyOral healthGerontologyEnvironmental health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2003, 9% of Canadians aged 15 or older reported that they had no natural teeth; that is, they were edentate. This estimate is based on data from the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS). A comparison of estimates from the CCHS and the 1990 Health Promotion Survey reveals a decline in the prevalence of complete tooth loss. In 1990, 16% of the population was edentate. The largest decline in edentulism occurred in the older population. Close to half of individuals aged 65 or older (48%) were edentate in 1990; in 2003, the proportion was 30%. This reduction is not surprising given the fairly widespread fluoridation of water and improved access to dental care.1 Other contributing factors include growth of disposable income, improvements in dentist-to-population ratios and expansion of dental insurance coverage.2-4

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations45
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicDental Health and Care UtilizationFrench-language works237,207