Elders assessment of an evolving model of oral health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate qualitatively a model of oral health through focus groups among elders. METHODS: The participants (30 women and 12 men; mean age: 75 years) attended one of six focus groups to discuss the relevance of the model to their oral health-related beliefs and experiences, and transcripts of the narratives were analysed systematically for the components, associations and recommendations emerging from the discussions. RESULTS: The groups confirmed the relevance of the original components of the model with minor modifications, but felt that for completeness it required four additional components: diet; economic priorities; personal expectations; and health values and beliefs. They recommended that the negative connotations of limited activity, impairment and restricted participation were modified with the positive terms activity and participation, and they suggested that ellipses rather than concentric circles more aptly illustrate the dynamic and overlapping importance of the various components in the model. CONCLUSION: The original model required additional components and graphic representation to accommodate all of the experiences and beliefs relating to the oral health of the elders who participated in this qualitative study.
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 | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".