Alfred Owre: Revisiting the Thought of a Distinguished, Though Controversial, Early Twentieth‐Century Dental Educator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many in dental education are unfamiliar with the professional life and thought of Dr. Alfred Owre, a distinguished though controversial dental educator in the early twentieth century. Owre served as dean of dentistry at both the University of Minnesota, 1905-27, and Columbia University, 1927-33. He was also a member of the Carnegie Foundation's commission that developed the report Dental Education in the United States and Canada, written by Dr. William J. Gies. Owre was a controversial leader due to his creative and original ideas that challenged dental education and the profession. His assessment and critique of the problems of dental education in his era can readily be applied to contemporary dental education and the profession, just as his vision for transformative change resonates with ideas that continue to be advocated by some individuals today. This article also documents his tumultuous relationship with Gies.
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 | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".