Evidence‐based practice and the professionalization of dental hygiene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The application of knowledge is fundamental to human problem solving. In health disciplines, knowledge utilization commonly manifests through evidence-based decision making in practice. The purpose of this paper is to explore the development of the evidence-based practice (EBP) movement in health professions in general, and dental hygiene in particular, and to examine its relationship to the professionalization agenda of dental hygiene in Canada. EBP means integrating practitioner expertise with the best available external evidence from research. Proponents of EBP believe that it holds promise for reducing a research-practice gap by encouraging clinicians to seek current research results. Both the Canadian and American Dental Hygienists Associations support practice based on current research evidence, yet recent studies show variation in practice. Professionalization refers to the developmental stages through which an organized occupation passes as it develops traits that characterize it as a profession. The status conferred by professionalization privileges a group to make and monitor its own decisions relative to practice. Dental hygiene's success in acquiring attributes of a profession suggests that transformation to a profession is occurring. This paper compares the assumptions and challenges of both movements, and argues the need for a principal focus on the development of a culture of evidence-based dental hygiene practice.
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 | 0.052 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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".