Restrictive Practices Commission: report of enquiry into the statutory restrictions on the provision of dental prostheses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1978, the Irish Association for Dental Prosthesis (IADP), an \norganisation of dental mechanics, submitted a memorandum to the \nMinister for Health in which they outlined, as they saw it, the position \nthen obtaining in relation to the provision of dental health care in this \ncountry, and made suggestions as to how this could be improved. \n1.2 In their view, the amount of dental disease in our society requires \nthe dental profession to devote their efforts to prevention and treatment, \nand time spent on prosthetic work reduced the time spent on \nprevention and treatment. In addition, they submitted that under the \npresent system and because of the overall shortage of dentists, the \ncost and quality of dentures were not likely to improve. They indicated \nthat in other countries, notably Canada, the denture problems had \nbeen solved by creating a new denture care system known as denturism. \nUnder this, full and removable partial dentures are constructed, \naltered and repaired directly for the public by denturists specifically \ntrained and educated to perform this service. This, they claimed had \nled to an improved quality and fit of denture, freed the dentists to \nconcentrate on preventive treatment, and reduced the cost of dentures \nby 50 per cent.
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 | 0.034 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".