Inclusion oral health: Advancing a theoretical framework for policy, research and practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to headlines about the oral health of persons experiencing social exclusion resonating in high-income countries, and research demonstrating the need for urgent action, a symposium entitled 'International Perspectives on Socially Inclusive Dentistry: A Call to Action' was organized for the IADR International Meeting of 2018. The aim of the symposium was to initiate an international dialogue on barriers to care, multidisciplinary action and examples of best practice for service delivery for people experiencing social exclusion; in other words, to develop the idea of inclusion oral health. Through our international exchange, what emerged was an awareness of a lack of professional consensus: What exactly is inclusion oral health? A theoretical framework to push forward the policy, research and practice agenda was clearly needed. This paper advances such a framework. Over the decades, dentistry has forged an approach to service delivery mainly through a business, demand-led model. While oral health continues to improve globally, an important consequence of this approach is that it compounds the social exclusion that many people are already experiencing because of a constellation of economic, political, cultural and individual factors. Thus, many people are simply not getting the dental care they need. In contrast, drawing on the theoretical literature on social exclusion, intersectionality and othering, we suggest that dentistry could act as an agent for social inclusion as a more responsive, all-encompassing form of oral health care and delivery. This paper advances a theoretical framework for inclusion oral health, and an action plan to show how inclusion oral health may become one solution in an armamentarium to tackle the global phenomena of oral health inequities.
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 | 0.126 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.168 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.038 | 0.037 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.031 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".