An argument for dental hygiene to develop as a discipline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The practice of dental hygiene was developed to provide oral health education and preventive oral health care, originally for children. It has grown to provide oral health services valued by a broad spectrum of society, but has not attained the desired respect and status accorded to other professional groups. OBJECTIVE: Professional disciplines link actions of practitioners with the science that is the foundation of practice. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether dental hygiene practice could benefit from pursuit of development as a discipline. METHODS: Literature on professionalization and disciplines, related to dental hygiene in general and the North American context specifically, was retrieved from databases and grey sources, such as organizational reports. Dental hygiene's current characteristics relative to a discipline were examined. RESULTS: Dental hygiene has developed some characteristics of a discipline, such as identifying a metaparadigm that includes concepts of the client, the environment, health/oral health and dental hygiene actions, with a perspective that includes a focus on disease prevention and oral health promotion. However, research production by dental hygienists has been limited, and often not situated within theoretical or conceptual frameworks. CONCLUSION: Dental hygiene draws its knowledge for practice from a variety of sources. Dental hygiene could strengthen its value to society by prioritizing development of highly skilled researchers to study interventions leading to improved oral outcomes, and transferring that knowledge to practitioners, strengthening links between practice and science. Intentional pursuit of knowledge for practice would lead to dental hygiene's eventual emergence as a professional discipline.
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 | 0.020 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".