Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the validity of single-item parental ratings of child oral heath. METHODS: Data were collected during a study to assess the impacts of dental injury. Clinical examinations of children aged 11-14 years were undertaken that included measures of trauma, decay, treatment needs, and fluorosis. Children with trauma and a group of trauma-free children were followed-up. Parents were mailed a questionnaire along with a questionnaire for the child that contained a short form of the Child Perceptions Questionnaire 11-14 (CPQ11-14). Bivariate analyses examined associations between parents' ratings of their child's oral health, measures of dental disease, clinically defined treatment needs, and scores on the CPQ11-14. Logistic regression was used to see if the associations observed remained after controlling for access to dental care variables. RESULTS: Complete data were collected from 370 children and their parents. Parental ratings showed significant associations with most of the clinical indicators used and CPQ11-14 scores. Similar results were obtained when the data were analysed for subgroups defined by household income and mother's education. These associations remained after controlling for access to dental services. CONCLUSION: The data suggest that single-item parental ratings of child oral health have adequate construct validity.
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 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".