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 OpenAlexaff
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

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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

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

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
GenreReview

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

Citations45
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDental TraumatologySame topicDental Trauma and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207