How can dental public health competencies be addressed at the undergraduate level?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To discuss the extent to which an undergraduate dental module addresses dental public health competencies via its different learning pedagogies and to explore the relevance of students' written reflections on these dental public health competencies. METHODS: This article uses a literature review to situate the extent to which dental public health competencies are addressed by the University of British Columbia undergraduate dental module entitled "Professionalism and Community Services" (PACS). It also uses students' written individual self-reflections (between 100 and 500 words) on community service learning activities to critically illustrate how dental public health competencies support their learning. RESULTS: The PACS dental module is delivered to undergraduate students in all 4 years, more than 190 in total, and addresses six dental public health competencies, including oral health promotion, ethics, and evidence-based practice. The multifaceted pedagogical approach employed to discuss aspects of dentistry related to dental public health includes guest lectures, community activities, small group activities, self-reflection, and reports. CONCLUSIONS: Given the falling number of dental public health professionals in North America, the discussed undergraduate pedagogy aims to sensitize future dentists to a career focused on dental public health. Through reflections, students pondered ideas related to dental public health; they also engaged in developing meaningful activities in various underserved communities. Further studies are needed to evaluate the influence of this community-based curriculum upon students' practice choice.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".