Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nine decades elapsed between the birth of Ontario's first dental school and that of its second.What a gestation period!From a very rudimentary base -the first lecture in the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario was in November 1875 -the practice of dentistry evolved into a vital health care profession with a broad, knowledgeable, scientific, and technological undergirding and creative treatment regimens requiring meticulous skills.More importantly, the dental profession's emphasis on the prevention of dental and oral disease improved society's general health.During the first fifty years of its growth, Western's dental program as Ontario's second dental school significantly contributed to this development.The authors are uniquely qualified to undertake this history.David Kenny and his equally courageous classmates cast their lot with a totally unknown and inexperienced school that had neither a building nor a fully approved curriculum.It had only a very limited academic staff in the clinical disciplines and a totally inexperienced dean (me)!The long-established basic science departments within the Faculty of Medicine found it necessary to develop academic staff and curricular plans to meet the comparable but varying needs of dental students.The co-author is Professor Shelley McKellar, holder of the AMSendowed Hannah Chair in the History of Medicine at the Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry at Western University.McKellar has published extensively and serves on several bodies having pertinence to the scope and manifestations of the history of medicine.This history of Western's dentistry program is significantly enhanced through the application of McKellar's knowledge and expertise.Why was a second dental school in Ontario -and an eighth dental program in Canada -needed?Why was London's University of Western Ontario selected as the site?The authors objectively and accurately delve
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.429 | 0.310 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".