MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2757977755 · doi:10.1111/edt.12375

Mouthguards and their use in sports: Report of the 1st International Sports Dentistry Workshop, 2016

2017· review· en· W2757977755 on OpenAlex
Jeffrey D. Lloyd, Wayne S. Nakamura, Yoshinobu Maeda, Tomotaka Takeda, Richard Leesungbok, David A. Lazarchik, Brett Dorney, Tomoya Gonda, Kazunori Nakajima, Toshikazu Yasui, Yoshihiro Iwata, Hiroshi Suzuki, Naoki Tsukimura, Hiroshi Churei, Kung‐Rock Kwon, Melvin M. H. Choy, James B. Rock

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDental Traumatology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDental Trauma and Treatments
Canadian institutionsGeneral Electric (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMouthguardMisinformationAthletesConfusionPsychologyMedicineMedical educationEngineeringDentistryPhysical therapyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There appears to be much confusion or misinformation worldwide regarding mouthguards and their use in sports. In an effort to clarify where the international dental community stands on mouthguards and mouthguard research, the workshop looked at some important questions. The goal was to one day formulate consensus statements related to these questions, which will be based on current scientific evidence-based research, to motivate the international community of the importance of dentally fitted laminated mouthguards and the wearing of them by athletes of all sports. There are only five sports in the United States that require the use of mouthguards. If, through workshops such as this, the importance of wearing dentally fitted laminated mouthguards can be demonstrated, then more sports may require their athletes to wear them.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.221
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.264 · 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