WITHDRAWN: Cosmetic Science Applied to Dentistry and Teeth: An Analytical Appraisal
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
<p>Since the authors are not responding to the editor’s requests to fulfil the editorial requirement, therefore, the article has beenwithdrawn from the journal “Current Cosmetic Science”</p><p>Bentham Science apologizes to the readers of the journal for any inconvenience this may have caused.</p><p>The Bentham Editorial Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at https://benthamscience.com/editorial-policies-main.php.</p><p>BENTHAM SCIENCE DISCLAIMER:</p><p>It is a condition of publication that manuscripts submitted to this journal have not been published and will not be simultaneouslysubmitted or published elsewhere. Furthermore, any data, illustration, structure or table that has been published elsewheremust be reported, and copyright permission for reproduction must be obtained. Plagiarism is strictly forbidden, and by submittingthe article for publication the authors agree that the publishers have the legal right to take appropriate action against theauthors, if plagiarism or fabricated information is discovered. By submitting a manuscript the authors agree that the copyrightof their article is transferred to the publishers if and when the article is accepted for publication.</p>
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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