MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3180120553

Exploring access in a volunteer free-service dental clinic.

2021· article· en· W3180120553 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maria G Kallal, Sharon M. Compton, Arlynn R Brodie, Breanne L Moran, Minn N. Yoon

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutreachHealth careNursingDental careService (business)PopulationFree clinicMedicinePsychologyPublic relationsMedical educationFamily medicineBusinessPolitical scienceEnvironmental health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Marginalized, low-income individuals face many barriers to dental care, including but not limited to cost. The Student Health Initiative for the Needs of Edmonton (SHINE) dental clinic is a student-operated volunteer clinic offering free services to low-income individuals. This study aimed to explore the access to dental care needs of low-income groups, from community health brokers' perspectives. Case description: The study was deemed exempt from ethical approval (Pro00074745). Five semistructured interviews exploring access to dental care were conducted with health brokers purposefully selected from 4 different community outreach centres. Access was defined and analysed using Penchansky and Thomas' theory of access as modified by Saurman. Results: Interviews revealed lack of awareness of the SHINE clinic. Translation and interpretation support was an identified need, and there was concern for clients who fear discrimination in health care settings. Conclusion: Preliminary barriers to care at SHINE were identified. However, further investigation is required to understand how SHINE aligns with population needs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.179
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.162 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicDental Health and Care UtilizationFrench-language works237,207