MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588883808 · doi:10.1111/jphd.12208

The virtual dental home: a critique

2017· article· en· W2588883808 on OpenAlexaff
Jay W. Friedman, David A. Nash, Kavita R. Mathu‐Muju

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Public Health Dentistry · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterimOral healthDental careMedicineDental healthDentistryFamily medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Virtual Dental Home is a concept of the Pacific Center for Special Care of the Arthur A. Dugoni School of Dentistry in San Francisco. It is designed to improve access to dental care for underserved populations, specifically children and institutionalized adults. This article describes the development and implementation of the Virtual Dental Home, subsequently critiquing the concept. The criteria for a dental home are not met by the program. It is the equivalent of a traditional public oral health prevention and screening program, with the additional dimension of allowing dental hygienists and assistants to place interim glass ionomer restorations in dental cavities. The critique questions the need to insert a "cloud" dentist into the process. The routine utilization of radiographs is also challenged. The VDH not only lacks the attributes of a dental home, it has not been shown to be as efficient and effective as traditional programs staffed by dental hygienists and dental therapists. The article concludes by describing how programs utilizing dental therapists could address the deficiencies of the Virtual Dental Home, effectively improving access to oral health care for underserved populations.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.027
Scholarly communication0.0060.012
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0180.031
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Public Health DentistrySame topicDental Health and Care UtilizationFrench-language works237,207