Independent dental hygiene practice worldwide: a report of two meetings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Following a meeting at the EUROPERIO in Berlin in 2003, a forum on Independent Practice of Dental Hygienists was held at the International Symposium on Dental Hygiene (ISDH) in Madrid July, 2004. The forum was organized and moderated by Beate Gatermann, President of the German Dental Hygiene Association. The participants were asked to address the following issues: population of country/state; population of dentists; population of state recognized dental hygienists (Canada/USA etc.); number of hygienists with 'Diploma' (Europe); duration of dental hygiene education; cost of education (2/3 year base approximately); when and how independent practice began in the country and who must be consulted or approve the application for an independent office (e.g. Health Department); what services are allowed? Can dental hygienists administer local anaesthesia in the dental office, and if so, must a dentist be present? Can dental hygienists purchase the necessary medication for the injection? Does the dental hygienist require additional education to provide local anaesthesia? How are the patients charged? Does the country offer a service fee list? Do insurance companies pay claims of the dental hygienist? What is the approximate average fee per hour charged (Euro/dollars)? Do dentists refer patients to you? If so, do they need a letter of referral? Are dental hygienists allowed to take radiographs in independent dental hygiene offices?
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 | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".