Comparison of Manitoban general and pediatric dentists behaviour guidance technique usage and preference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To examine differences in the usages and otherwise preferences of behaviour guidance techniques between Manitoban general and pediatric dentists when considering year of graduation, training locations, and source of training. Methods: Surveys using SurveyMonkey were emailed to a random 25% sample of general dentists and all pediatric dentists in Manitoba. The nonparametric test Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test was performed on all data. Significance levels were considered at alpha <0.05 and at 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: A total of 87 completed responses were collected (72 general dentists, 15 pediatric dentists). Statistically significant differences were found in voice control, oral sedation, tell-show-do, and general anesthesia. Conclusions: In general, there were few statistically significant differences; however, there were some clinically significant findings. Overall, tell-show-do for both groups, oral sedation for general dentists, and nitrous oxide sedation for both groups were found to be the most favoured in their respective categories while protective stabilization and IV sedation were the least favoured in their respective categories.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".