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
Objectives: To determine the interest of residents of orthodontics in using distance learning and to determine their perceptions of learning experience. Study Design: A Cross-Sectional, Interventional Study. Period: From 1.1.2016 to 1.7.2017. Setting: Orthodontic department of de’Mont Dental College, Lahore. Methods: Present study was conducted on the orthodontic postgraduate trainees. Trainees were asked to read all given research studies before watching a recorded 1 hour interactive seminar. This was followed by participation in a discussion with specialist at the trainees’ institute. The trainees then filled questionnaire to measure the interest of postgraduate trainees of orthodontics in using distance learning and to determine their perceptions of learning experience. Results: Results of the study showed that trainee’s interest and perceptions were generally positive about distance learning experience. Statistically significant differences were found between trainee’s interest and perceptions based on how well they were prepared before involvement in this interactive distance learning session. Conclusion: The postgraduate trainees of orthodontics perceived distance learning to be effective, enjoyable and learn full.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.007 |
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