Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2008, Korea has enacted new ordinances about the role of estheticians, but this law can be interpreted ambiguously, restricting hiring of estheticians in medical clinics. The purpose of the study is to obtain information about medical-esthetic systems in other countries. We have taken a survey of this object from 30 OECD & Asian countries, and the questionnaires returned from a total of 22 countries (Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Singapore, Israel, and Thailand), were used for the final analysis. The results are summarized as follows. In most countries, estheticians working independently deal with only healthy, normal skin. In most countries, estheticians working independently have no right to operate any medical instruments. In all 17 countries that returned the questionnaires medical clinics can employ estheticians, and only theses estheticians who belong to the medical clinics can handle the non-invasive medical instruments under the supervision of doctors. In 17 countries that have related legal regulations, nurses, under the control of doctors, can perform wider range of duties in various settings than estheticians. The survey concludes that the duties of estheticians are closely related with medical skin care services and estheticians can perform various non-invasive medical procedures only under the control of doctors. From consulting a variety of medical-esthetic systems in other countries, we propose that the estheticians be allowed to work in medical clinics to provide better medical services for the patients and to make more chances of employment for themselves. (Korean J Dermatol 2008;46(9):1149~1154)
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
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".