MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2959460899 · doi:10.5005/johcd-9-3-138

Predictors Of Dental Disease Among Youth Incarcerated At A Toronto-Area Youth Centre

2015· article· en· W2959460899 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maria Van Harten, Herenia P. Lawrence, Carlos Quiñonez, Goodman D

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Oral Health and Community Dentistry · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOral healthMedicineCohortOral examinationFamily medicineDental careHealth careGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Canadian correctional institutions provide dental services to a vulnerable cohort ofyoung people: incarcerated youth. Published data on the oral health of thiscohortis not available. Objective To determine the oral health status of youth in a closed-custody facility in a large Canadian centre Methods A cross-sectional study of youth incarcerated ata Toronto-area facility was conducted from September 2010 till July 2011. Participants completed a survey on social, correctional and oral health histories, and underwent oral examination. Results Of 101adolescent participants, 81.2% had permanent teeth affected by tooth decay. In this group, an average of 4.39 teeth were affected and. the proportion of decayed teeth was 0.51. Race, custody history and case status were predictors of poor oral health. CONCLUSIONS By quantifying the need for oral health services and by identifying variables associated with greater dental disease, these findings may assist health care providers in youth correctional facilities with their program planning for their high-needs wards.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.256
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Oral Health and Community Dentistry→Same topicDental Health and Care Utilization→French-language works237,207→