Rethinking Oral Health in Aging: Ecosocial Theory and Intersectionality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poor oral health affects the health and well-being of older adults in many ways. Despite years of international research investigating poor oral health among older adults, it has remained a largely unresolved problem. The aim of this article is to explore the combination of 2 key frameworks, ecosocial theory and intersectionality, to guide our exploration and understanding of oral health and aging and help inform research, education, policy, and services. Proposed by Krieger, ecosocial theory is concerned with the symbiotic relationship among embodied biological processes and social, historical, and political contexts. Building on the work of Crenshaw, intersectionality explores how social identities such as race, gender, socioeconomic status, and age interconnect in ways that can enhance privilege or compound discrimination and social disadvantage. Intersectionality offers a layered understanding of how power relations reflected in systems of privilege or oppression influence an individual's multiple intersecting social identities. Understanding this complexity and the symbiotic relationships offers an opportunity to reconsider how inequities in oral health for older adults can be addressed in research, education, and practice and increase the focus on equity, prevention, interdisciplinary care, and use of innovative technology.
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 | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".