From Improving Egos to Perfecting Smiles: Orthodontics and Psychology, 1945–2000
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From World War II to the end of 20 th century, the types of patients undergoing orthodontic treatment and their reasons for doing so changed significantly. In the 1950s and 1960s, Canadian parents were told that orthodontics would “cure” inferiority complexes and protect children with crooked teeth, especially girls, from a life of delinquency and missed opportunities. By the last two decades of the 20 th century, the consumer health movement and rising incomes empowered patients to decide which treatments were right for them, and an increasing number of adult patients sought orthodontic treatment to improve their appearance. Orthodontists never abandoned their claim that orthodontic treatment could improve psychological health, as while health psychologists and other researchers increasingly called this into question. But orthodontists did begin to place greater emphasis on aesthetics as a reason for treatment, and orthodontics became part of a much larger explosion in “cosmetic dentistry” procedures that came to include tooth whitening and veneers.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".