MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139146221 · doi:10.1017/s0714980814000087

Oral Healthcare Challenges for Older Punjabi-Speaking Immigrants

2014· article· fr· W2139146221 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Michael I. MacEntee, Sabrina T. Wong, André Smıth, B. Lynn Beattie, Mario Brondani, S. Ross Bryant, Peter Graf, Shimae Soheilipour

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsOral healthHumanitiesPolitical scienceEthnologyArtSociologyDentistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explored how older Punjabi-speaking South-Asian immigrants (four focus groups; 33 participants) in Surrey, British Columbia, perceive oral health and related problems. Content analysis revealed two umbrella themes: (a) interpretations of mouth conditions and (b) challenges to oral health. The umbrella themes had four sub-themes: damage caused by heat (wai), disturbances caused by caries, coping with dentures, and quality of life. Three challenges were considered: home remedies, Western dentistry, and difficulties accessing dentists. Participants explained oral diseases in terms of a systemic infection (resha), and preferred to decrease imbalances of wai in the mouth with home remedies from India. We conclude that older Punjabi-speaking immigrants interpret oral health and disease in the context of both Western and Ayurvedic traditions, and that they manage dental problems with a mix of traditional remedies supplemented, if possible, by elective oral health care in India, and by emergency dental care in Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicDental Health and Care UtilizationFrench-language works237,207