A look at the (near) future based on the (recent) past - how our patients have changed and how they will change.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Remedies for dental diseases have been in use for as long as 4,000 years, and various materials and methods have been used over the millennia. Dentistry continues to change in response to changes in the age distribution, origins, financial means and health of the population, as well as to changes within the profession itself. The Canadian population is very unevenly distributed geographically and ethnically. Furthermore, it is aging rapidly and life expectancy is increasing. Although the average income of Canadians has increased, the increase was unevenly distributed, and the gap between rich and poor continues to expand. There has been a steady rise in the number of Canadians with dental insurance, although the proportion of the population with insurance varies from one province to another. Not surprisingly, people with dental insurance compared to those without are more frequent users of dental services. The rate of caries attack has diminished in industrialized countries, but people are keeping their teeth longer, so caries will remain a significant public health problem, particularly among elderly people. In addition, smoking tobacco is strongly associated with periodontal disease; thus, there should be more action within the dental community in support of smoking cessation programs. The composition of the dental care community is also changing. The ratios of dentists and dental hygienists to the population have increased, the services offered by dental technicians have expanded greatly, and the services offered by denturists have also increased as these services gain more widespread acceptance. Use of dental services in Canada remains reasonably broad; however, denture-wearers continue to regard uncomfortable dentures as a normal part of aging. The pattern of uneven distribution of disease and access to service remains the major challenge facing the dental profession.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.008 |
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".