Regulated Health Professions Act and dental hygiene : a study of the changing social organization of health care delivery in Ontario / Lynda McKeown Mickelson
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Has the new health legislation, the Regulated Health Professions \nAct, 1994. changed the social organization of health care delivery \nin Ontario? My research has shown that this new legislation, which \ngoverns twenty-four health professions, is a site of power \nrelations. \nThe seemingly mundane and ordinary practice of oral health care \ndelivery is examined to find evidence of change in the social \norganization of health care. The relationship between two \nproviders of services surrounding the mouth and oral health care, \ndental hygiene and dentistry exemplify the power relations and the \ninherent resistance emerging as the legislation is enacted. The \nevidence at this time indicates that the existing professional \nmonopolies may not be disrupted easily, even with new legislation. \nThe themes that emerged from the struggle to reframe the relations \nbetween dentistry and dental hygiene under the new R.H.P.A. are: \ndiscourse/language, professional dominance, technologies of \nbureaucracy, gender, and power/knowledge.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".