Catherine Carstairs, <i>The Smile Gap: A History of Oral Health and Social Inequality</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oral health today is in crisis. Globally, access to oral health care is largely dictated by socio-economic status and geographic location creating huge inequalities between those with healthy teeth and those without. While oral health has long been maligned in history, the stark inequalities associated with it are attracting growing scholarly attention. Catherine Carstairs, a historian based at the University of Guelph, has focused on these inequalities in her latest book. Carstairs’ book is both a history of oral health in Canada and a manifesto for tackling current oral health inequalities. Drawing on an impressive range of sources, she outlines how the current provision of oral health services and goods across the Canadian provinces was historically shaped throughout the twentieth century and how this history resulted in the integration of oral hygiene practices into everyday life. While this story is in some ways a global one, Carstairs’ attention to Canada’s particular mix of public and private health care provision helps to situate the book as a nuanced national history and demonstrates the importance of teeth to health, communication, beauty and interpersonal relationships.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.010 |
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".