MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198698416 · doi:10.29309/tpmj/2018.25.01.552

TOOTH BRUSHING TECHNIQUES

2018· article· en· W3198698416 on OpenAlex

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

VenueThe Professional Medical Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Research and COVID-19
Canadian institutionsCollège Montmorency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDentistryTooth brushingOrthodontics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: This study is performed to ascertain the efficacy of “horizontal scrub”Fones method and “modified bass” brushing techniques. Method: A group of 150 schoolchildren of age 8-11 years were randomly selected in different schools of Gojra city. Threegroups of schoolchildren were made by random selection and children of each group weredemonstrated by one of the three techniques. Group 1(Fones method). Group 2(modifiedBass). Group 3(Horizontal scrub). All the kids under this study were reexamined after two daysand re-assess the plaque index and to obtain follow-up data. Result: The result concluded bystatistical analysis and intergroup comparison also concluded by using ANOVA test. Reductionin plaque score was assessed and compared with each other. Conclusion: Modified Bass wasfound most effective in the reduction of plaque score, horizontal scrub was the second effectivetechnique and least one was Fones.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.347
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.393 · 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