Theory analysis of the Dental Hygiene Human Needs Conceptual Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Theories provide a structural knowing about concept relationships, practice intricacies, and intuitions and thus shape the distinct body of the profession. Capturing ways of knowing and being is essential to any professions' practice, education and research. This process defines the phenomenon of the profession - its existence or experience. Theory evaluation is a systematic criterion-based assessment of a specific theory. This study presents a theory analysis of the Dental Hygiene Human Needs Conceptual Model (DH HNCM). METHODS: Using the Walker and Avant Theory Analysis, a seven-step process, the DH HNCM, was analysed and evaluated for its meaningfulness and contribution to dental hygiene. The steps include the following: (i) investigate the origins; (ii) examine relationships of the theory's concepts; (iii) assess the logic of the theory's structure; (iv) consider the usefulness to practice; (v) judge the generalizability; (vi) evaluate the parsimony; and (vii) appraise the testability of the theory. FINDINGS: Human needs theory in nursing and Maslow's Hierarchy of Need Theory prompted this theory's development. The DH HNCM depicts four concepts based on the paradigm concepts of the profession: client, health/oral health, environment and dental hygiene actions, and includes validated eleven human needs that evolved overtime to eight. It is logical, simplistic, allows scientific predictions and testing, and provides a unique lens for the dental hygiene practitioner. With this model, dental hygienists have entered practice, knowing they enable clients to meet their human needs. CONCLUSION: For the DH HNCM, theory analysis affirmed that the model is reasonable and insightful and adds to the dental hygiene professions' epistemology and ontology.
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 | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".