Comparison of Extramural Clinical Rotation Days: Did the Pipeline Program Make a Difference?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extramural clinical rotations are implemented by dental schools for a combination of clinical and didactic or behavioral goals. In the United States, the Pipeline, Profession, and Practice: Community-Based Dental Education program was launched to increase the number of underrepresented minority students who are recruited and retained in dental education, to expand the dental curriculum in cultural competence, and to incorporate community-based extramural rotations into the dental schools' clinical curriculum. The objective of this study was to conduct an impact analysis regarding the change in number of extramural clinical rotation weeks for Pipeline and non-Pipeline program students over the time period of 2003 to 2007. National data from the American Dental Education Association's senior survey and other secondary sources were used to determine what student, school, and community characteristics are associated with a difference in the student report of the number of required weeks they expect to spend during their last year in dental school providing care at extramural clinic settings. Students reported a mean of 7.2 weeks for Pipeline students and 6.4 weeks for non-Pipeline students in 2003, increasing to 8.2 weeks for Pipeline students and 6.6 weeks for non-Pipeline students (p<0.05) in 2007. The multivariable model showed the Pipeline program increased significantly the number of rotational weeks reported by students. Three other variables significantly increased rotation weeks: 1) a lower baseline number of reported weeks in community rotations; 2) a lower level of debt student reported upon graduation; and 3) student reports of a higher orientation toward service to others as a reason to enter dentistry.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".