Professionalization, Gender and Female‐dominated Professions: Dental Hygiene in Ontario*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article explore L'influence des rapports sociaux entre les sexes et du féminisme sur les professions à majorité féminine au moyen d'une étude de cas en hygiène dentaire en Ontario. Le statut professionnel à part entière a échappéà plusieurs de ces professions, y compris L'hygiène dentaire. Historiquement, cette dernière était définie comme un travail pour les femmes, àêtre exécuté sous la stricte surveillance des dentistes hommes. Récemment, L'hygiène dentaire a poursuivi un projet de reconnaissance professionnelle et lutté pour une plus grande indépendance à L'endroit de la dentisterie. Les idées issues des rapports sociaux entre les sexes et particulièrement du féminisme y ont occupé une place centrale. This paper explores the influence of gender and feminism on the professional projects of female‐dominated professions, through a case study of dental hygiene in Ontario. Full professional status has eluded many female‐dominated professions, including dental hygiene. Historically, dental hygiene was defined as work for women, to be performed strictly under the control of male dentists. In recent years, dental hygiene has pursued a professional project and struggled for greater independence from dentistry. Ideas about gender and, particularly, feminism have been central to their professional project.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".