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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is widely accepted that all dentists should have a thorough understanding of the muscles involved in moving or stabilizing the mandible. However, there is still much discussion regarding the influence of the mandibular muscles on normal facial growth and dental development, as well as on orthodontic treatment and post-treatment stability. Potential patients with different underlying vertical muscle patterns will have differences in the expected directions of future mandibular growth, lateral profile shape, facial and arch widths and vertical occlusal relationships. In turn, thorough diagnoses are likely to lead to differences in individual aims and objectives, treatment plans, timing of commencement, mechanical design, lateral profile and smile-aesthetics outcomes, choice of retention and plans for long-term maintenance. The potential influence of the mandibular muscles on normal morphologic variation and the soft tissue implications on contemporary orthodontic treatment and stability will be addressed in this review.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it