Oral hygiene knowledge of high‐risk Grade One children: an evaluation of two methods of dental health education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effectiveness of two methods of dental health education (DHE) for improving oral hygiene knowledge among high-risk Grade One students was evaluated. Fifty elementary schools in the former City of North York, Canada were assigned to one of two groups. In one group, students received a classroom-based DHE lesson which was reinforced by two small-group sessions (n=243). In the other group, students received only a single classroom-based DHE lesson (n=206). After DHE interventions, students in both groups displayed improved knowledge for most oral hygiene questions (e.g., when should you throw your toothbrush away?). However, for several questions, a significantly higher proportion of "classroom plus small-group sessions" students displayed improved knowledge compared to students receiving only a classroom lesson. These items included: awareness that cavity prevention and removal of germs are two purposes of oral hygiene; and knowledge that teeth help people to eat and talk. Results suggest a classroom-based lesson combined with small-group sessions is a more effective method of improving oral hygiene knowledge among high-risk Grade One students compared to a single classroom-based lesson.
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 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 | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".