El cuidado a la salud bucal del anciano: buenas prácticas fundamentadas en el paradigma de la promoción de la salud Oral health care of the aged: good practices based on health promotion paradigm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Presenta la elaboración de un referente de buenas prácticas del cuidado a la salud bucal a la población anciana, basado en la Promoción de la Salud (PS). El método adoptado fue el de la Teoría Fundamentada en los Datos. El referencial teórico-práctico se describe para guiar el desarrollo de acciones en consonancia con el paradigma de la PS según la Carta de Ottawa y sus cinco áreas. Es necesario considerar estas prácticas de cuidado como un objetivo a alcanzar y contribuir al progreso sostenido en la calidad del cuidado y la transformación en las condiciones de salud bucal durante el curso de la vida. It presents the elaboration of a theoretical-practical referential of good oral health care practices to the aged population, based on the principles of Health Promotion (HP). The methodological referential adopted was Grounded Theory. The theoretical-practical referential is described to guide the development of oral health care actions to the aged, in consonance with the HP paradigm defended in the Ottawa Charter according to five areas. It is necessary to consider these care practices, that conform the theoretical-practical referential here detailed, as an objective to reach, to contribute to the sustained progress in the quality of the care and, consequently, promote a transformation in oral health conditions during life course.
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 | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".