MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2910519316

Tennessee Dental Establishments: 2007-2012 Economic Survey.

2018· article· en· W2910519316 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
H. Barry Waldman, Misha Garey, Rick Rader

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiberian dollarEarningsCensusRecessionImmigrationBusinessQuarter (Canadian coin)Demographic economicsInflation (cosmology)State (computer science)MedicineGeographyEconomicsFinanceEnvironmental healthPopulation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To document the evolving economies of dental establishments in the State of Tennessee during a period of significant growth of the number of establishments before and after the "Great Recession." METHOD: Published results from the five-year economic surveys by the U.S. Census Bureau on business receipts and salaries of employees (including dentists) for the State of Tennessee and its counties were used to construct a review of these developments. RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2012, there were continued increases in average current dollar business receipts and employee salaries. However, in terms of standard dollars, removing the effects of inflation: 1) business receipts increased in 19 counties but decreased in 37 counties; 2) employee salaries increased in 13 counties but decreased in 30 counties. CONCLUSIONS: Results are in line with the reports by the ADA Health Policy Institute, which indicate that nationally the percentage of dentists who report they are not busy enough has increased and dentists' earnings are stagnating. The need is to expand the delivery of care to underserved populations, including the poor, individuals with disabilities, minorities and new immigrant populations, for whom oral health services may not be a priority commodity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score0.885

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicDental Health and Care Utilization→French-language works237,207→