Are Manitoba dentists aware of the recommendation for a first visit to the dentist by age 1 year?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Canadian Dental Association (CDA) and the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD) recommend that children visit the dentist by 12 months of age. PURPOSE: To report on how Manitoba"s general dental practitioners and pediatric dentists manage oral health in early childhood. METHODS: Mailed surveys that used the modified survey methods of Dillman were sent to 390 Manitoban general dental practitioners and pediatric dentists. The sampling frame was the Manitoba Dental Association"s Membership Registry, but only those dentists who consented to the release of their mailing information were contacted. Survey data were analyzed with Number Cruncher Statistical Software (NCSS 2007). Descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses and multiple regression analyses were done. A p value of < or = 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 292 (74.9%) of the 390 practitioners responded, of whom 85.1% met the eligibility criteria and 84.6% were graduates of the faculty of dentistry, University of Manitoba. Overall, infants and preschoolers constituted < 10% of patients in the respondents" practices. Slightly more than half (58.3%, 144/247) of participants were aware of professional organizations" recommendation about the timing of children"s first visit to the dentist; 52.2% (130/249) were unaware of the existence of a standardized case definition for ECC; and 32.3% (80/248) knew that ECC was defined as the presence of at least 1 primary tooth affected by caries in children < 6 years of age. On average, these participating dentists from Manitoba thought children should visit the dentist by 2 years of age. CONCLUSIONS: Although early visits to the dentist are now endorsed by CDA and AAPD, a significant number of dentists in Manitoba are still unaware of the recommendation that children should first visit the dentist by 12 months of age.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".