The Importance of Oral Health in Immigrant and Refugee Children
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the Migration Policy Institute, 2017 data revealed that a historic high 44.5 million people living in the United States (US) were foreign-born [1], more than double the number from 1990 [2]. Since the creation of the Refugee Resettlement Program in 1980, refugee families have settled in the US more than in any other country in the world [3]. In 2018, for the first time, Canada overtook the US in numbers of refugees accepted [1]. Foreign-born people now account for 13.7% of the total US population [1]. Further, a quarter of children in the United States currently live in households with at least one foreign-born parent [4]. These population shifts are important to note because immigrant and refugee families bring cultural influences and health experiences from their home countries which can greatly affect the overall health and well-being of children. For these new arrivals, oral health is often a significant health issue. The severity of dental disease varies with country of origin as well as cultural beliefs that can hinder access to care even once it is available to them [5,6]. As pediatricians and primary care providers, we should acknowledge that oral health is important and impacts overall health. Healthcare providers should be able to recognize oral health problems, make appropriate referrals, and effectively communicate with families to address knowledge gaps in high-risk communities.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it