MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132967805

Association between early childhood caries and child maltreatment outcomes in preschool children

2006· dissertation· W7132967805 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Nancy Patricia Valencia-Rojas

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2006
Typedissertation
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFaculty of Dentistry, University of TorontoUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsEarly childhood cariesAssociation (psychology)DentitionChild abusePoison controlPermanent dentitionInjury preventionEarly childhoodRetrospective cohort study
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives. To collect data on ECC prevalence and severity using the dfmt/s index in children with a history of maltreatment and determine whether untreated decay rates in the primary dentition differ between abused and non-abused children. Methods. A retrospective prevalence analysis was conducted using data from the existing dental and social records of Children's Aid Society of Toronto. Results. The study included a total of 66 records. Untreated decay was observed in 58% of the abused children. 56.6% of neglected children. The mean 'dt' value was 5.40 (SE 0.68) and 3.12 (SE 0.52) for the whole sample. Children who have been in care more than once or for a period of one year were less likely to have experienced caries. Conclusion. Abused/neglected young children have higher levels of tooth decay than the general population; however, this study did not find differences in decay prevalence between types of maltreatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicChild Abuse and Trauma→French-language works237,207→