Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives : The purpose of the study is to investigate the oral health behaviors between students studying in Vancouver, Canada and college students in Daejeon, Korea. Methods : A self-reported questionnaire was filled out by 239 students in November, 2013. The questionnaire consisted of oral health behavior including tooth brushing methods between two countries. Chi-square test and t-test were analyzed. The analyses were conducted using R version 2.14.2(R Foundation for statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). Results : The number of tooth brushing in Korean students was higher than those in Canada. Fifty nine percent of the Koreans brushed their teeth 3 times a day while 62.3% of students in Canada brushed their teeth 2 times a day(p<0.0001). Those who were taught on oral health education tended to brush the teeth more frequently that those who had not. Koreans and Japanese tended to brush teeth more frequently after breakfast than the Taiwanese(p=0.005). Koreans also brushed teeth after dinner more frequently than Japanese, Taiwanese, and other foreigners(p=0.012). Conclusions : This study indicated that Koreans have better oral health behaviors in comparison to students studying abroad.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".