MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2419301257

Designing a framework of intelligent information processing for dentistry administration data.

2005· article· en· W2419301257 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and Data Classification
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceData warehouseOnline analytical processingSchema (genetic algorithms)Raw dataSQLTable (database)Data scienceDatabaseData miningInformation retrieval
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to test a cumulative view of current data in the clinical database at the Faculty of Dentistry, Dalhousie University. We planned to examine associations among demographic factors and treatments. METHODS: Three tables were selected from the database of the faculty: patient, treatment and procedures. All fields and record numbers in each table were documented. Data was explored using SQL server and Visual Basic and then cleaned by removing incongruent fields. After transformation, a data warehouse was created. This was imported to SQL analysis services manager to create an OLAP (Online Analytic Process) cube. RESULTS: The multidimensional model used for access to data was created using a star schema. Treatment count was the measurement variable. Five dimensions--date, postal code, gender, age group and treatment categories--were used to detect associations. Another data warehouse of 8 tables (international tooth code # 1-8) was created and imported to SAS enterprise miner to complete data mining. Association nodes were used for each table to find sequential associations and minimum criteria were set to 2% of cases. Findings of this study confirmed most assumptions of treatment planning procedures. There were some small unexpected patterns of clinical interest. Further developments are recommended to create predictive models. CONCLUSIONS: Recent improvements in information technology offer numerous advantages for conversion of raw data from faculty databases to information and subsequently to knowledge. This knowledge can be used by decision makers, managers, and researchers to answer clinical questions, affect policy change and determine future research needs.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.246 · 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