MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987282166 · doi:10.1038/bdj.2007.997

Modelling the way that dentists use information: an audit tool for capability and competency

2007· article· en· W1987282166 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alan Gillies, John Howard

Bibliographic record

VenueBDJ · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditCapability Maturity ModelMaturity (psychological)Best practiceDental practiceQuarter (Canadian coin)The InternetBusinessDentistryComputer scienceMedicinePsychologyWorld Wide WebAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Information, and the use of computers to provide that information, is becoming an increasingly important part of all aspects of clinical practice including dentistry. In 2003, a survey of English dental practices found nearly a quarter of practices were not using computers at all. Dental practices, whether NHS or private, can use information technology to provide significant benefits to patients and practices alike. In this article, a model is described for the maturity of information usage in dental practices. The model uses an approach successfully deployed previously in a range of applications in healthcare and other domains. The approach audits current maturity of usage and staff competency to help develop improvement plans for dental practices. The article describes how the model has been made freely available to dental practices over the Internet.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueBDJSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207