Access to dental care for persons with developmental disabilities in Ontario.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study was undertaken to determine the proportion of persons primarily with developmental disabilities who encounter difficulties accessing dental care in Ontario, to identify perceived barriers to accessing dental care and to determine if persons with disabilities and their caregivers believe that oral health is important. METHODS: Community organizations providing services mainly to persons with developmental disabilities in Ontario were recruited to circulate a questionnaire to their members by mail or the Internet. Fourteen organizations mailed out a total of 1,755 paper questionnaires in autumn 2006, of which 420 (23.9%) were returned; in addition, 236 Internet questionnaires were returned. RESULTS: Of the 656 paper and Internet responses, 634 were deemed valid. Most of the respondents had developmental disabilities. Almost three-quarters of respondents (464 [73.2%] ) reported being able to access dental services in Ontario. Personal (internal) factors were more likely to represent barriers to dental care than external factors. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of persons with disabilities and most caregivers believed that oral health is important for overall health.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".