Use of nitrous oxide and oxygen for conscious sedation to manage pain and anxiety.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 13-item survey of dentist's views about approaches to pain and anxiety management was distributed in Atlantic Canada. Respondents indicated that about 50% had training in conscious-sedation techniques and 20% had learned to administer intravenous (IV) sedation. Sixty-nine percent of those responding had used oral sedatives to help manage fearful patients. Forty-six percent had referred anxious adult patients to specialists or other dentists, and 78% had made similar referrals for anxious children. Seventeen percent reported using conscious sedation, but they typically treated more than 20 anxious patients per year. Most (80%) believed that nitrous oxide and oxygen (N2O/O2) conscious sedation should be included in the treatments that a licensed practitioner can provide, and they were evenly divided in their opinion about the need for a separate licence for its use. However, only half of respondents believed that IV sedation should be included among a general practitioner"s treatment options, and over 70% said that this treatment should be subject to a separate licence. The implications of these findings for curriculum are discussed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".