Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2025, the Journal of Periodontal Research proudly celebrates its 60th anniversary.On this occasion, after more than 50 years, we are transitioning to 12 issues per year [1].Together with this milestone, we introduce one of the exciting initiatives marking the journal's new era: a series of Perspective Articles under the theme "The Past, The Present, The Future".This series will feature contributions from the "giants" of our field and will serve as a unique opening to each issue of the Journal of Periodontal Research.The series commences with an insightful contribution from one of the most influential figures ever in periodontology: Professor Jan Lindhe.This manuscript stems from a memorable conversation we shared over tea and biscuits at his home in May 2024.During this magnetic interview, I was transported back in time to relive the pivotal moments that have shaped periodontology, vividly recounted from his extraordinary memory.At the same time, I was struck by his revolutionary mindset, as he continues to challenge established dogmas and share his visionary ideas for the future of our discipline.I am delighted to share the essence of this unforgettable encounter, which holds a special place in my heart.I hope that this manuscript not only transports readers to that tea-and-biscuits moment, but also ignites a burst of inspiration from the past, present, and future of periodontology.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".