Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper has been developed from a version originally submitted as an assignment for the Faculty of General Dental Practice (UK) Certificate in Health Services Leadership and Management Course. It has been revised in the light of the independent review led by Professor Jimmy Steele into National Health Service dental services in England (generally referred to as the Steele Report), which has commented on many of the points dealt with here. The paper addresses issues arising from a moral tension often experienced by dentists between the professional desire to serve patients well and the necessity, as practice owners running a business, to survive financially. The need for honest and open recognition of what is truly achievable from the public purse is stressed. Rights and responsibilities are discussed in relation to professional practitioners, their patients, and society in general, in seeking the moral high ground under different funding arrangements. The paper concludes by stressing the need to offer improved health rather than palliation of disease.
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 | 0.026 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.035 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".