Family Influences on Caries in Grenada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
If high-conflict family environments are cariogenic across cultures, and can be studied in cultures where both these environments and cariogenic dental practices are particularly prevalent, this would afford the opportunity to examine how these two pathways of risk might interact, laying the stage for culturally competent, integrated prevention efforts. The first investigation involved qualitative data about perceptions of oral health and family stressors in Grenadian families with school-aged children. The second study used a questionnaire and observational data to assess relations among oral health behaviors, relationship satisfaction, parenting, and child behavior; it also included a pilot study of Motivational Interviewing. Most of the themes discussed in focus groups suggested overlap between U.S. and Grenadian parents; possible culture-specific issues were high prevalence of single-parent homes, normativity of physical discipline, less preventive dental care, and more fatalistic view of oral health outcomes. Significant associations were found between parent and child oral health behaviors, between child externalizing and internalizing behaviors, and between family variables (e.g., relationship satisfaction, child behavior) and oral health behaviors (e.g., parent flossing, child brush time). The results strongly support the need for research on the relations between family functioning and oral health to be embedded within culture.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".