Bibliographic record
Abstract
I: The Danger in Our Mouths The use of mercury in dental amalgam fillings has been an accepted practice in the United States for more than a hundred years. So it should come as no surprise that most people assume the silvery-looking fillings in their mouths are safe and nontoxic, posing no risk to their health. But is this assumption well founded? An analysis of the scientific evidence on mercury can only lead to a resounding “no.” Mercury is a toxic heavy metal that can have disastrous health effects. Research shows that mercury is associated with disorders such as multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease, depression and reduced immune functioning. Mercury exposure also presents a risk to fetuses in mothers who have amalgam fillings. California recognized this risk in November 2000 when it became the first state to require dentists to inform their patients that amalgam fillings may cause birth defects. It is of interest that the studies proving mercury’s toxicity often come from the journals of conventional dentistry and medicine. Even so, orthodox dentistry continues to assure us that the mercury in our mouths is safe. This disconnect between our long-standing assumption that mercury amalgams are nontoxic and the evidence showing otherwise reminds us of an important principle: What has been accepted as true is not always so scientifically.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".