Resident Evaluation of Orthodontic Programs in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the satisfaction of Canadian orthodontic residents with their programs and determine the scope of their training. An anonymous online questionnaire was sent to all Canadian orthodontic residents in November 2006. Data were assembled and categorized by different variables, and chi-square comparative analyses were performed. Forty-four out of fifty-four residents responded, giving a participation rate of 81.48 percent. Overall, 86.36 percent of responding residents were satisfied with their program. Respondents said they felt they received the appropriate amount of formal didactic teaching sessions and dedicated and protected academic time. All residents indicated their programs offered training in numerous treatment philosophies: 93.18 percent said they have sufficient clinically based training, and 72.73 percent indicated that their research-based training was sufficient. All responding residents indicated they will complete more than thirty patients from start to finish, and 25 percent estimated completion of more than seventy patients by graduation. Residents said they will complete on average five orthognathic surgery, twenty-four extraction, thirty-one non-extraction, eight adult, and thirteen patients in the mixed dentition. Only 50 percent said their programs contained care for disabled or underserved patients. Most (86.36 percent) said they feel they will be adequately prepared to provide unsupervised orthodontic care after graduation. These orthodontic residents indicated they collaborate most with the disciplines of oral surgery, periodontics, and prosthodontics. However, only 52.27 percent indicated they have a formal interdisciplinary program for treating patients. We conclude from the study that Canadian orthodontic residents are satisfied with the didactic, clinical, and research aspects of their programs. They receive comprehensive instruction with the opportunity to complete a significant number of patients, employing a variety of treatment approaches.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".