Estudo longitudinal do crescimento crânio-facial (análise cicular)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A longitudinal study of growth statistically was performed by superimposition on the tracings of 41 individuals, at 6, 9, 12 and 20 years of age from the sample of the Burlington Growth Centre, University of Toronto, Canadá. With a new approach in cefalometrics, named Circular Cephalogram. The Basion is it registration point and the centre of a circle that inscribes the face and the skull where lines like radii are joining the Basion to more external anatomic points. The Circular Cephalogram with origin in the basion point was proposed mainly because most classics cephalograms show by superimposition the cranial base displaced backwards and downwards which doesn't correspond to reality as the cranial base cannot grow against the cervical column that grows in the oposite direction that is upwards. The superimposition in the Basion point is assumed that shows better the actual direction of the face growth, as the unfolded growth of any part of the body goes in a radial way, where the inner part is always smaller than the external one. Angular measures were effected; in the angles created by the tines of junction of the anatomic or virtual points to the Basion in all cephalograms of the sample and averages obtained. The "t" test has been used for the comparison of the averages. It was not found any significant variation at the level of alpha=0.05 and 0.01. It was also found, by the Pearson's coeficient of the variation, that the averages represent the sample.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".