MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804179946 · doi:10.12968/denu.2018.45.5.400

Essentials of light curing

2018· article· en· W2804179946 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Bengt Price, Adrian C. Shortall

Bibliographic record

VenueDental Update · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental materials and restorations
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCuring (chemistry)Computer scienceMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: This article provides the key points for ensuring safe, effective and efficient light curing protocols in clinical practice. The article covers light curing unit selection, appropriate irradiance ranges, the effect of operator training and the importance of incorporating material requirements and clinical variables when choosing an appropriate light curing time. Practical advice is given about how to measure the light output and how to minimize the risks of thermal damage to the dental pulp and adjacent soft tissues. The need to protect the eyes of the dental team from the blue light hazard is discussed. CPD/Clinical Relevance: This article is written because there is a wide range of technical knowledge and safety awareness about light curing procedures among dentists.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.004

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.266 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDental UpdateSame topicDental materials and restorationsFrench-language works237,207