La publicité professionnelle : problématique soulevée dans le cadre de la déontologie du médecin-dentiste
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Professional publicity has undergone major changes since 1970, when the FTC, OECD and governments, upon the encouragements from economists, liberated it from its previous restrictions. Formerly it had been thought detrimental to the quality of services and the dignity of the profession. This new wave, buoyed by adapted norms of the Charters and the Code of ethics, brought about a new jurisprudence, which solidified legal argumentations, based on the American Bill of rights, the Canadian and the Québec charters. This policy had its impact on Québec in 1990' s following a Supreme Court' s decision in the Rocket ruling rendered by the honourable judge McLachlin. We mean to present a certain jurisprudence to evaluate the consequences of this movement and shall try to analyse the problematic it has produced in dental advertising. By revising restrictions on professional publicity the same judgement has contributed to create a better informed consumer while aiming to promote professionalism. Is professionalism, as we know it, in danger of loosing ground to commercialism? Has the consumer truly profited by the modifications to our laws and has the monetary aspect really worked out in his favour?Publicity wanting it or not has become a reality to live with. How well the profession will deal with it is another matter. The role of the ODQ and the dental faculties will be determinant in motivating the profession to regenerate professionalism, which has been under considerable strain since the liberalisation of publicity.
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 | 0.027 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 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".