Propolis efficiency against Enterococcusfaecalis compared with other intra-canalmedicaments: a systematic review withmeta-analysis
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
AMA Karlak V, Ortarzewska M, Jankowski J, Nijakowski K. Propolis efficiency against Enterococcus faecalis compared with other intra-canal medicaments: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Journal of Stomatology. 2024:136-146. doi:10.5114/jos.2024.139915. APA Karlak, V., Ortarzewska, M., Jankowski, J., & Nijakowski, K. (2024). Propolis efficiency against Enterococcus faecalis compared with other intra-canal medicaments: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Journal of Stomatology, 136-146. https://doi.org/10.5114/jos.2024.139915 Chicago Karlak, Victoria, Martyna Ortarzewska, Jakub Jankowski, and Kacper Nijakowski. 2024. "Propolis efficiency against Enterococcus faecalis compared with other intra-canal medicaments: a systematic review with meta-analysis". Journal of Stomatology: 136-146. doi:10.5114/jos.2024.139915. Harvard Karlak, V., Ortarzewska, M., Jankowski, J., and Nijakowski, K. (2024). Propolis efficiency against Enterococcus faecalis compared with other intra-canal medicaments: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Journal of Stomatology, pp.136-146. https://doi.org/10.5114/jos.2024.139915 MLA Karlak, Victoria et al. "Propolis efficiency against Enterococcus faecalis compared with other intra-canal medicaments: a systematic review with meta-analysis." Journal of Stomatology, 2024, pp. 136-146. doi:10.5114/jos.2024.139915. Vancouver Karlak V, Ortarzewska M, Jankowski J, Nijakowski K. Propolis efficiency against Enterococcus faecalis compared with other intra-canal medicaments: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Journal of Stomatology. 2024:136-146. doi:10.5114/jos.2024.139915.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it