Perceived social support and discrimination and oral health behaviors in adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to examine the associations between perceived social support and oral health behaviors among adolescents and if this perception had a protective effect against the influence of perceived racial discrimination on oral health behaviors in this population. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Participants of this cross-sectional study were adolescents aged 12-18 years recruited from University dental clinic. They completed a questionnaire comprising three sections: demographics (14 items), oral health behaviors (6 items), and validated Personal Resource Questionnaire (25 items). Perceived discrimination was evaluated by a question asking if the adolescent had ever experienced discrimination based on their race. RESULTS: Of 252 participants, mean (SD) age of 14 (1.8) years, 60% were girls, 56% were self-identified as White, and 81% were born in Canada. Discrimination was reported by 21%. Frequency of toothbrushing and self-rated oral health were significantly associated with increased levels of perceived social support. Sugar consumption was significantly different for participants with and without perceived racial discrimination (p-value = 0.002). Perceived social support did not act as a buffer against perceived racial discrimination for sugar consumption (OR = 1.00; 95% CI: 0.98-1.01). CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents' perceived social support affected some aspects of their oral health but did not moderate the influence of perceived racial discrimination.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".