MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Age estimation from dental evidences-A review

2016· article· en· W2592910378 on OpenAlexaff
Qutsia Tabasum, R.K. Pathak, Jagmahender Singh Sehrawat, Manjit Talwar, Dasari Harish

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimationMedicineDentistryMathematicsOrthodonticsEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estimating age becomes a challenging task in medico-legal cases depending upon the nature of sample or evidence. In forensic odontology, dental growth and development parameters have been correlated with age using number of techniques. Since many years, different methods have been proposed to estimate age and with the span of time and these have been modified in order to attain greater accuracy. Generally, it is suggested to accommodate various techniques of skeletal, dental and molecular aspects to enhance the results, most importantly in the case of forensic matters where precision and accuracy is the foremost concern of the forensic odontologist dealing with the dental evidence. This paper reviews the common radiological and morphological methods used to estimate age in forensic odontology.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.659
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.015
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Indian Academy of Forensic MedicineSame topicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesFrench-language works237,207