Research in PBL - where to from here for dentistry?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brief history of PBL in dental educationProblem-based learning (PBL) was first introduced into medical education at McMaster University in Canada in the 1960s and it then spread to many other medical schools.Its introduction into dental education occurred much later, with schools in Sweden, Australia, USA, Hong Kong, Ireland and the United Kingdom implementing PBL-based curricula in the 1990s.Since then, PBL has been introduced into many dental programmes around the world.In most cases, rather than full PBL programmes, hybrid programmes have been developed or PBL has been introduced into one or more courses, alongside other more traditionally presented courses.Since its introduction, PBL has been a controversial topic.Those who first embraced the approach generally became strong supporters, while others remained sceptical.Most of the research that has been carried out on PBL is reported in the medical education literature, although there have been a few studies relating to dentistry that have been published, mainly in the European Journal of Dental Education (EJDE) and the Journal of Dental Education.(JDE).The main topics covered in these publications will be summarised later in this paper.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 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 it