MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157864630 · doi:10.1177/1049732308327243

Understanding Parents' Oral Health Behaviors for Their Young Children

2008· article· en· W2157864630 on OpenAlexaff
Maryam Amin, Rosamund Harrison

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPediatric health and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyOral healthMedicineFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Young children with extensive dental decay often require a general anesthetic (GA) to enable dental treatment. The purpose of this study was to develop a grounded theory to help our understanding of the processes that influence parental adoption of dentally healthy behaviors following the experience of their child's "dental general anesthetic." Twenty six interviews were conducted. Data were analyzed and a conceptual model was generated. Overall, the dental GA experience had an immediate, but short-lived, impact on parental behavior change. Parents had difficulty over time maintaining these behaviors. Social influences, family context, and parenting strategies were the key categories that influenced parental behavior change; however, parenting strategies occupied the central position in the model. Cultural beliefs, actions of dental professionals, and media/advertising were some of the identified barriers to behavior change. Those parents who were more confident in their ability to successfully carry out dentally healthy practices were more likely to maintain them over time.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.835
GPT teacher head0.674
Teacher spread0.161 · 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

Citations91
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Health ResearchSame topicPediatric health and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207