MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2440038892

Some current legal issues that may affect oral and maxillofacial radiology: part 1. Basic principles in digital dental radiology.

2007· article· en· W2440038892 on OpenAlexaffabout
D S MacDonald-Jankowski, Elaine C Orpe

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Radiography and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTeleradiologyMedicineOral and maxillofacial radiologyLegislationAffect (linguistics)Health careDentistryDental practiceRadiation protectionMedical physicsOral and maxillofacial surgeryNuclear medicinePsychologyPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Developments in oral and maxillofacial radiology affect almost every aspect of dentistry: some change the legal framework in which Canadian dentists practise; some re-emphasize established standards of care, such as the dental radiologist's mantra, ALARA (using a dose that is as low as reasonably achievable) and viewing images in reduced ambient lighting. Developments in the legislation that regulates the use of radiology, such as Health Canada"s Safety Code 30 for radiation safety in dentistry and the Healing Arts Radiation Protection Act, also affect the practice of dental radiology. Some technical developments, such as charge-coupled devices and photostimulatable phosphors, are already well-known to the profession. Teleradiology, currently used in hospitals, but unfamiliar to most dentists (especially those working in urban communities), may soon have an impact on dentistry when it is used for Canada"s electronic health record, now under development. In this first of 2 articles about dental digital technology, we discuss the legal impact of developments in oral and maxillofacial radiology on dental practice and patient care.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.247 · 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.

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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicDental Radiography and ImagingFrench-language works237,207