MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183333479 · doi:10.1177/11771801211016873

Healthy Smile, Happy Child: partnering with Manitoba First Nations and Metis communities for better early childhood oral health

2021· article· en· W3183333479 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Grace Kyoon‐Achan, Robert J. Schroth, Daniella DeMaré, Melina Sturym, Julianne Sanguins, Frances Chartrand, Rhonda Campbell, Jeanette Edwards, Josée G. Lavoie, Michael Moffatt

Bibliographic record

VenueAlterNative An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsManitoba HealthFirst Nations Health and Social Secretariat of ManitobaWinnipeg Regional Health AuthorityUniversity of ManitobaChildren's Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMetisIndigenousViewpointsEarly childhoodFocus groupFirst nationHealth promotionMedicinePsychologyDevelopmental psychologyPublic healthSociologyNursingAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indigenous populations in Canada are disproportionately affected by early childhood caries. The Healthy Smile, Happy Child initiative utilizes a community development approach to encourage community uptake of evidence-based early childhood oral health promotion strategies. Sharing circles and focus groups elicited First Nations and Metis (Indigenous peoples of mixed Indigenous-European, primarily French, ancestry) views on the challenges of keeping children caries-free. We share participants' experiences and viewpoints on implementation research strategies, principles and protocols that are sensitive to Indigenous community-based contexts.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0240.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlterNative An International Journal of Indigenous PeoplesSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207