Perspectives on Community Dental Clinics and Oral Health Inequities in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study investigates the expansion of community dental clinics to address oral health inequities in the province of British Columbia (BC) from the perspectives of dental professionals and allied service-providers. METHODS: Sixty-three people participated in individual and group interviews with dentists (n=4), dental hygienists (n=30), dental clinic staff (n=17), and other health care and social service providers (n=12). RESULTS: We identified two service-models: a volunteer-charitable (VC) model typically operating part-time mostly to relieve pain and a not-for-profit (NFP) model open full-time usually within a community health centre with paid staff providing basic dental services. CONCLUSIONS: Community dental clinics are increasing in number to fill a gap in the oral health care of disadvantaged people in BC. Staff in these clinics raised questions indirectly about distributive justice and health care inequity by suggesting that the unmet dental need of vulnerable people requires political attention and that restricted dentistry for underserved communities is socially unacceptable.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".