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
New glass-ceramic restorative materials have been developed over the last few years, with enhanced strength characteristics along with desirable optical properties that make them ideal for the fabrication of esthetic crowns and veneers. The purpose of this paper was to provide an overview of the current state of the art of porcelain veneers as a viable option for the esthetic treatment of anterior teeth, and to illustrate the potential of the newly-developed glass-ceramics. Some historical background about the development of the porcelain veneer concept is provided. A list of indications and contraindications for porcelain veneers is followed by their preparation designs, with emphasis on the importance of maintaining the preparation boundaries within the enamel. Impression-taking procedures, provisional restoration fabrication, the choice of porcelain materials and their intaglio surface treatment are all discussed. A case where veneers made with a lithium-disilicate glass-ceramic were used to improve the appearance of maxillary anterior teeth is included. Several studies reporting on the longevity of porcelain veneers up to 12 years are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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