MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4230225473 · doi:10.24124/2010/bpgub1468

Effects of primary prevention on early childhood caries in Canadian First Nations children ages 0-4 years

2010· dissertation· en· W4230225473 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shirley Nixon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Electrical, Communications and Cyber Systems
KeywordsCINAHLMedicineEarly childhood cariesRandomized controlled trialMEDLINEPrimary preventionPrimary careOral healthCochrane LibraryFamily medicinePediatricsGerontologyDiseaseNursingPsychological interventionPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early childhood caries (ECC) in Canadian First Nations (FN) children is at disproportionately high levels compared to the national average.Current literature suggests a paradigm shift in approach to the causes and management ofECC can significantly decrease these levels.The purpose of this paper is to critically analyze the question "For Canadian First Nations children, ages 0-4 years, could the introduction of primary disease prevention and self management reduce levels of ECC compared with the present model of care?''Reviews, randomized-controlled-trials (RCT), guidelines, and articles were searched through bibliographic databases including Cochrane database, Ovid MEDLINE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL).Results indicate primary disease prevention can significantly decrease levels ofECC in high risk children.Recommendations were developed to guide Nurse Practitioners (NPs) in the initiation and provision of primary preventative oral health care to FN mothers and infants.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDental Health and Care Utilization→French-language works237,207→