MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2704802474

Prosthetic Rehabilitation Part II: Technical Procedures

2013· article· en· W2704802474 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fazal Ghani

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRehabilitationGeneral surgeryPhysical therapy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This book available since 2011 from Quintessence Publishing Company UK and entitled “Prosthetic Rehabilitation Part-II: Technical Procedures” is the English language translated version of the original Italian edition entitled “Riabilitazione Protesica”. The original title was published in 2004 by UTET – Unione Tipografico-Editrice Torinese S.P.A, Italy. The translation has been done by Jennifer Sardo Inferri and funded by Segretario Europeo Per Le Publicazioni Scientifiche (SEPS) Bologna, Italy. The book is authored by more than 30 senior teachers and specialist practitioners who are either graduates or affiliated to the University of Turin in Italy. The need for and the quality of the writing as well as the credentials of all the authors and its editor Giulio Preti, currently Professor Emeritus at the University of Turin, Italy, can be judged by reading the “Foreword” on page IX of the book that has been written by the “Father of Modern Era Prosthodontics- George A. Zarb” Professor Emeritus at the University of Toronto Canada. According to editor of the book, Professor Emeritus Giulio Preti, the writing has been based on the life-long clinical experiences and practices in the department at the dental school in Turin.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.031

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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.543
Teacher spread0.384 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→