Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There has been little in the literature to date that speaks of an art of dental hygiene compared to science. Yet, science, conceived as the findings from research, does not apply itself; it is the knowledge, judgement and skill of practitioners to apply these findings in a particular setting that, at its highest level, informs artful dental hygiene practice. The purpose of this paper is to question whether an art of dental hygiene exists, if it is important, and how it relates to science. METHODS: The method used in the analysis contained in this paper is a dialectical approach used to examine contrary positions, i.e. whether art exists or does not exist, by outlining the structure of each position and clarifying explicit and implicit similarities and dissimilarities. A framework of conceptualizations of art from nursing has been used to examine dental hygiene literature for evidence of art. RESULTS: A preliminary conceptualization, substantiated within dental hygiene, sees the art of dental hygiene as abilities to grasp meaning in client encounters, establish meaningful connections with clients, perform dental hygiene actions skillfully and proficiently, rationally determine courses of dental hygiene action, and conduct dental hygiene practice morally and ethically. CONCLUSIONS: That an art of dental hygiene exists is not in doubt and the analysis is presented. To understand better how dental hygienists make practice decisions to develop this process to its optimum - the pursuit of perfection and excellence in dental hygiene practice, we must pursue understanding the art of 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 | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".