Bibliographic record
Abstract
Occupational regulation of health personnel is important to professional associations and their members, the public that relies on their services and the regulatory agencies responsible for their conduct. There is increasing interest in ensuring that dental hygiene regulation fosters the continuing evolution of the profession and its contribution to oral health. The keynote address for the 2007 Regulatory Forum on Dental Hygiene, this paper discusses the rationale for and issues pertaining to occupational regulation, outlines the evolvement of dental hygiene and identifies regulatory options for the profession. Professional regulation exists to ensure public safety, health and welfare. However, negative political-economic side effects coupled with environmental pressures have resulted in increased scrutiny for health professionals. One such profession is dental hygiene. Its evolution has been dramatic, in particular over the past few decades, as illustrated by its rapidly increasing numbers and broader distribution globally, gradual shift to the baccalaureate as the entry-level educational requirement and increase in postgraduate programs and expanding scope of practice and increased professional autonomy. Regulatory changes have been more gradual. Regulation is mandatory for the vast majority of dental hygienists. Of the options available, the practice act - the most rigorous type, is predominant. Globally, regulation tends to be administered directly by the government (n = 9 countries) more so than indirectly through a dental board (n = 4) or self-regulation (n = 3). Whether regulated directly or indirectly, dental hygienists increasingly are seeking a greater role in shaping their professional future. Self-regulation, its responsibilities, misperceptions and challenges, is examined as an option.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".