MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Understanding oral health beliefs and practices among Cantonese‐speaking older Australians

2010· article· en· W2118579449 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Journal on Ageing · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationEthnic groupOral healthChinaOral health careMedicineHealth careFamily medicineGovernment (linguistics)Dental careFocus groupNursingGerontologyPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: The present study was conducted to explore how older immigrants from Hong Kong or Southern China manage their oral health in Melbourne. METHODS: We used six focus groups involving 50 Cantonese-speaking immigrants who were 55 years and over and living in Melbourne. RESULTS: Four major themes relevant to oral health care emerged from the discussion: (i) traditional Chinese health beliefs; (ii) traditional medicine and oral health; (iii) attitudes towards dentists; and (iv) access to oral health-care services. Language, communication and cost of dentistry were identified as major barriers to oral health care. CONCLUSION: Older Chinese immigrants in Melbourne have concerns about oral health care that are similar to other ethnic groups, they want more oral health-related support from government, and many of they return to China or Hong Kong for dental treatment.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it