A discourse on dental hygiene education in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To cite this article: Int J Dent Hygiene 9, 2011; 242–249 DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-5037.2010.00495.xKanji Z, Sunell S, Boschma G, Imai P, Craig BJ. A discourse on dental hygiene education in Canada. Abstract: Over the past decade, the discourse on dental hygiene education has gained momentum in Canada. This review provides insights into the evolution of dental hygiene education in Canada, briefly exploring the history and professional influences for diploma and baccalaureate education within the profession. The profession in Canada has yet to implement a national standardized entry-to-practice educational model, but the recent development of national educational competencies may prove to be a promising beginning. The review also discusses efforts to advance dental hygiene education in recent years, while exploring the political and professional pressures and challenges that remain. Further discourse on education and outcomes-related research can be effective in positively influencing governmental, professional and public opinions of higher entry-level education for dental hygiene which may ultimately result in regulatory change and improved client outcomes.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".