Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dental hygiene in Canada has experienced significant growth. It has shifted from an emerging occupation to a regulated health profession in several jurisdictions. Many achievements may be attributed to this growth, including self-regulation and a national code of ethics. However, the majority of Canadian dental hygienists are relying on traditional, outdated and ineffective quality assurance mechanisms, such as mandatory continuing education requirements. In the interests of public protection, dental hygiene needs to ensure that the quality assurance activities required from its members are effective, valid and reliable. Quality assurance in health care continues to undergo modifications that better reflect the public's need for competent, ethical, safe and appropriate health care. Dental hygienists and dental hygiene regulatory bodies are challenged to find valid, reliable and effective methods of quality assurance. This paper discusses some of the developments in quality assurance in health care as well as some of the key and significant achievements of dental hygiene in Canada. The use of quality assurance mechanisms currently used in dental hygiene in Canada is also discussed. The paper concludes with a discussion on the potential barriers and issues that the profession may face when attempting to incorporate suitable quality assurance activities into daily dental hygiene practice.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".