Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epidemiologic evidence indicates that the prevalenceof dental caries in the permanent dentition amongUnited States and Canadian children and adoles-cents has been decreasing.1,2 For example, in 1958–1959 the mean decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth (DMFT) score for 13-year-old children in Toronto was 5.7; in 1999–2000, it had decreased to 1.1.3 Dental caries, however, is still a significant problem. Currently, in the United States, 20 % of children between the ages of 2 and 4 years have detectable caries, and approximately 80 % of youth will have had a cavity by the age of 17 years.4 Although the prevalence of caries has been decreasing in the general population, it remains high among Canadian Aboriginal and Native Americans.5–12 A comparison of 2 national oral health surveys7,8 of Canadian Aboriginal children 6 and 12 years of age conducted in 1990–1991 and, most recently, in 1996–1997, found that the mean decayed, extracted or filled deciduous teeth (deft) score for 6-year-old children increased statistically significantly from 8.2 to 8.7, whereas the mean DMFT score increased nonsignificantly from 0.7 to 0.8. Overall, for children 12 years of age, there was little change in mean DMFT score (4.6 to 4.5). According to these surveys, 6-year-old Aboriginal chil-dren in Ontario had the highest deft score of the 9 regions in the survey; their mean score was 11.1 in 1990–1991,
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.746 | 0.383 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".