An extended comparative analysis using vignettes of dental care coverage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Virtually all European countries state to guarantee universal healthcare coverage to their citizens. However, there is evidence, although scarce, that dental care is a special case as coverage is very limited in some countries and there are major differences across national jurisdictions. This comparative study tries to better understand how dental care is covered in Europe and Canada through the use of five vignettes presenting dental services for specific patients. Methods Experts from each country were asked to state whether the following situations were covered by their statutory systems: a) scaling and polishing to remove plaque deposits and calculus for an adult; b) treatment for caries including fillings and root canal treatment for an adult; c) prosthetic rehabilitation for an elderly; d) fillings and repairs for a seven-year old girl with serious tooth decay; e) orthodontic treatment for a 13 old boy. Results Preliminary analysis of the vignettes from 10 countries show that there is a large variation between countries in who delivers dental care, how much it costs and who pays for it. Conclusions Full coverage of dental care is rare in Europe and the extent of coverage varies greatly across countries in Europe and also in comparison to Canada.
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 | 0.018 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".