Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dentists have the privilege of possessing, administering and prescribing drugs, including highly addictive medications, to their patients. But because drugs are often vulnerable to being abused by all members of society, including dentists and their patients, and because drugs can be dangerous, they are tightly regulated in Canada by the federal and provincial/territorial governments. Regulatory and professional dental bodies also provide guidance for their members about how to best administer and prescribe drugs. This chapter outlines the regulation by federal and provincial/territorial governments in this area, examines the professional practice requirements set out by regulatory/professional bodies and the issue of drug abuse by dental professionals and patients. It is important to note from the outset that governmental and professional regulations, policies and practices differ from province to province and territory to territory. This chapter aims to alert dentists to possible legal and professional issues surrounding the possession, administration and prescription of drugs. For detailed specific information about regulation, policies, ethical standards and professional practice standards in Canada or their province/territory, dentists should contact their insurer, regulator or professional association.
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".