MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Wicked problems: policy contradictions in publicly financed dental care

2012· article· en· W1918190589 on OpenAlexaff
Carlos Quiñonez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Public Health Dentistry · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsDental careSustainabilityPublic policyBusinessPublic relationsWicked problemPublic administrationPublic economicsMedicineEconomicsPolitical scienceFamily medicineLawEconomic growthManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To review two policy issues that define publicly financed dental care as a "wicked policy problem." METHODS: Historical review. RESULTS: By demonstrating how governments have shifted their funding focus from direct delivery care, to public third-party financing arrangements in private dental offices, and by their willingness to fund composite restorations in public fee schedules, it is clear that the logic and sustainability of public programming needs reconsideration. CONCLUSIONS: The current contradictions in public dental care programs speak to the need for policy makers to reassess their goals, and ask whether decisions are based more on political necessity than on a logical evidence-informed approach to the delivery of publicly financed dental care.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.609
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Public Health DentistrySame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207