MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2432979305

The orthodontic workforce in Ireland: a report by the Orthodontic Society of Ireland.

2007· article· en· W2432979305 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Niall McGuinness, Muriel Collins

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDental Education, Practice, Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkforcePrivate practiceMedicineQuarter (Canadian coin)Family medicineWorkforce planningDentistryNursingGeographyPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are currently 110 specialist orthodontists in the Republic of Ireland. The response rate to this survey was 95 (85%); one-third of the orthodontic workforce are women; there are 49 (45%) orthodontists employed in the hospital service (including consultants) and 60 (55%) working in private practice; half (50%) of the orthodontists in hospital settings are female; only nine (18%) of those in private practice are female; two-thirds (66%) of the orthodontists in Ireland are under the age of 45; a little over one-quarter (28%) are under the age of 35; of those in the 25-35 age bracket, almost 80% are employed in the HSE. With increasing age, more orthodontists work in private practice; adult patients comprise 28% of the reported caseload in private practice compared to 12% in hospital settings; non-extraction patients account for 37% of the caseload in hospital settings compared with 57% in private practice; and almost one-quarter (24%) of those in hospital practice stated that they intended to change their working practice in the future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.351 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicDental Education, Practice, ResearchFrench-language works237,207