The discourse of dental hygiene practice in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently the discourse in Canada relating to dental hygiene practice has changed. While dentistry still exercises controlling power over the public's oral cavity, dental hygienists have made inroads through legislative changes. A description of Canadian dental hygiene practice is provided to set the stage for a discussion about current discourse in the dental hygiene profession. Although power is often perceived as a shifting changing set of relations, these can be frozen in abstraction. It is rather like taking a photo of a single moment or event in an ongoing activity. This moment provides a starting point, an event that can be analysed. Four such events are evident in Canadian dental hygiene practice; they include, education, recognition of dental hygienists as primary care providers, the culture of dental hygiene and self-regulation. While all the events are important, self-regulation is critical to the viability and development of the profession. It is the central event that provides the backdrop for effecting change. With self-regulation comes responsibility and accountability for professional actions. It also provides possibilities for changing the discourse in oral care. As oral health care discourse is transformed through legislation and public awareness, the public will, hopefully, be able to directly access dental hygiene services, and dental hygienists themselves might increasingly recognise their importance as contributors in the health care system.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.058 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".