General Dentists’ Perceptions About Their Relationship With Specialists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This paper assesses the nature of the general dentist-specialist relationship, as perceived by general dentists in Canada. METHODS: A cross-sectional web-based survey was administered to general dentists across Canada who are part of the Canadian Dental Association register and who have consented to receiving email surveys (N ≈ 11,300). Information including sociodemographic and practitioner- and practice-related factors was collected using a 47-item questionnaire. The general dentist-specialist relationship was conceptualised on the basis of 4 factors: communication, confidence, competition, and referrals. Descriptive analysis was conducted. RESULTS: The response rate for the survey was 11.7% (n = 1328). Most general dentists specified that specialists sent timely information/reports (93%), were partners in delivering care (64%), presented little competitive pressure (87%), and were strongly collegial (85%). CONCLUSIONS: In general, the study demonstrated that Canadian general dentists held a positive perception of their relationship with the specialists.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".