A Model for the Formation of the Person-centered Dental Care Provider
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dental education continues to emphasize scientific knowledge and technical skills, yet research reveals that what matters most to patients is how we communicate and relate to them. How do we teach trainees communication and relational skills and continue to cultivate these skills throughout clinical practice? A comprehensive model for the formation of the patient-centered dental provider is proposed and is represented by the metaphor of a tree. The model is the fruit of interviews with dental patients, observation of dental professionals, and review of literature on patient-centered care, patient satisfaction and malpractice trends. Six core relational skills include: Introduce, Solicit, Listen, Empathize, Explain, and Power of the patient (ISLEEP) and are represented by the branches of the tree. Discerning how to respond to a patient, how to apply the ISLEEP skills, moment by moment, requires being present with a kind intention, the definition of mindfulness. Mindfulness practices, represented by water, cultivate the roots of the tree which are the four aspects of mindfulness: Equanimity, Attentiveness, Self-awareness, and Empathy (E.A.S.E). Rooted in mindfulness, the dental care provider responds with intelligent and kind action, or whole person care, enriching both patient and provider.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".