Perceptions of Oral Illness Among Chinese Immigrants in Montreal: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Providing culturally competent care has been a growing concern for health care professionals in recent years. Being culturally competent means taking into account the culture of patients in order to provide high-quality services. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to better understand how oral illness was perceived by the largest visible minority group in Canada: Chinese immigrants. We conducted qualitative research based on in-depth interviews with twelve Chinese immigrants in Montreal, Canada. The participants had a high level of education and had lived in Canada for thirteen years or less. The interviews were transcribed, and thematic analyses were then performed. Among the participants, traditional beliefs coexisted with scientific dental knowledge. On the one hand, the subjects had a fairly good understanding of dental caries in terms of etiology, process, prevention, and treatment. On the other hand, they held strong traditional beliefs concerning gingival swelling and bleeding, which had an influence on their attitudes toward dental care and professional services. Oral health care professionals should be informed about Chinese immigrants' oral health beliefs and the acculturation process in order to understand their patients better and provide culturally competent care.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".