Dental care use in Ontario: the Canadian community health survey (CCHS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oral health is a significant measure of overall health, and regular dental visits are recommended for the maintenance of oral health. The purpose of this study is to determine the pattern (amount and type) of, and factors associated with dental care use among Ontarians. METHODS: Data from the 2014 cycle of the Canadian Community Health Survey was used and analysis was restricted to individuals aged 12 and above residing in Ontario. Dental care use was defined by two distinct outcomes: not visiting a dentist within the past year and visiting a dentist only for emergencies. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to examine the association between socio-demographic, health behavior, oral health, and other health-related factors and the two outcomes. RESULTS: More than a quarter of participants reported not visiting the dentist in the last year, and 19% reported usually visiting a dentist only for emergencies. Multivariable logistic regression analysis suggested that males, individuals of Aboriginal status, those with low educational attainment, low household income, no dental insurance, who smoked, less frequent teeth brushing, poor health of teeth and mouth, or had diabetes were at a significant increased likelihood of not visiting the dentist within the past year, and only visiting a dentist for emergency care. CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic status, self-reported oral health, and general health behaviors were associated with dental care use. These findings highlight the need for focusing efforts toward improving dental care use among Ontarians.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Observational | low |
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".