La mise en marché des services dentaires: étude éthique, déontologique et légale de l’acquisition et du maintien des connaissances du dentiste
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The object of this essay is to demonstrate the rationale between the offering of dental services and the proper knowledge of the sciences and the techniques involved. Repeateadly sanctionned for the motive of professional negligence due to his lack of knowledge or failure to conform to the standard of care, the dentist often fails to exonerate his responsibility in front of the different governing bodies that may confront him. It is then surprising that the guardian of the Quebecers dental health, the Ordre des dentistes du Québec, does not impose a mandatory continuing education standard to its members. The actual system lack the imposed knowledge of standard of care to the dentist, although he must demonstrate having acheived this standard when a contradictory expert debate is engaged to establish if he must be held responsible for the damages a patient may suffer. Some avenues of solutions are proposed, of which mandatory standardised continuing education seems appropriate, in the ultimate objective of lessening the bitter outcomes endured by the patients who become victims of the dental practitionners that fail to demonstrate the acquisition of this proper 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 | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".