MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183874119

Perceptions and attitudes of Canadian dentists toward digital and electronic technologies.

2006· article· en· W2183874119 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDigital Imaging in Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDental practiceThe InternetStratified samplingMedicinePerceptionEmerging technologiesFamily medicineQuality (philosophy)Medical educationPsychologyDentistryComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To determine dentists" perceptions of the usefulness of digital technologies in improving dental practice and resolving practice issues; to determine dentists" willingness to use digital and electronic technologies; to determine perceived obstacles to the use of digital and electronic technologies in dental offices; and to determine dentists" attitudes toward Internet privacy issues. METHODS: An anonymous, self-administered survey of Canadian dentists was conducted by mail. A potential mailing list of 14,052 active Canadian dentists was compiled from the 2003 records of provincial regulatory bodies. For each province, 7.8% of the dentists were randomly selected with the help of computer software. The surveys were mailed to this stratified random sample of 1,096 dentists. RESULTS: The response rate was 28% (312/1,096). Of the 312 respondents, 4 (1%) were in full-time academic positions, 16 (5%) were not practising, and 9 (3%) provided incomplete data. Therefore, 283 survey responses were available for analysis. More than 60% of the dentists indicated that computer technology was quite capable or very capable of improving their current practice by increasing patient satisfaction, decreasing office expenses, increasing practice efficiency, increasing practice production, improving record quality and improving case diagnosis and treatment planning. More than 50% of respondents reported that digital photography and digital radiography were quite useful or very useful. About 70% of the dentists agreed or strongly agreed with using digital and electronic technologies to consult with dental specialists. Cost of equipment and lack of comfort with technology were regarded as significant or insurmountable obstacles by substantial proportions of respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents generally viewed digital and electronic technologies as useful to the profession. Increased office efficiency and production were perceived as positive effects of digital and electronic technologies. These technologies are more often used for consulting with colleagues rather than for consulting with patients. The major obstacles to the general use of these technologies were related to cost, lack of comfort with technology and differences in legislation between provinces and countries. Privacy issues were not perceived as a significant barrier.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score0.839

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.209 · 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