Bibliographic record
Abstract
A questionnaire and oral screening were conducted with seniors in a rural Alberta health authority to determine their oral health needs. Both the dentate and the edentulous had high levels of treatment need. Of the dentate respondents, 41.8 percent had coronal caries, averaging .88 caries per dentate person. All dentate respondents had calculus and/or pocketing as measured by the Community Periodontal Index of Treatment Needs (CPITN). Among denture wearers, 64.4 percent were found to have calculus on one or both dentures, and 61.2 percent of lower dentures exhibited poor retention. In assessing their own oral health, 76.4 percent rated themselves somewhere between good and excellent. Among the dentate, 83.6 percent brushed daily; however 57 percent never flossed. Although 40.6 percent had been to a dentist/denturist within the last year, 70.1 percent saw a dentist/denturist only when they experienced pain or problems. Of those who had not been to a dentist/denturist within a year, 83.9 percent said the primary reason was because there was nothing wrong. Although treatment needs in this group were high, lasting change in the oral health status of this group requires more than immediate treatment. Enduring effects can only be facilitated by educating seniors as to what optimal oral health is, appropriate preventive behaviours, and the effective use of available professional services. Unless these issues are addressed there is not likely to be a great deal of improvement within each cohort.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".