Reasons that orthodontic faculty teach and consider leaving teaching
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
To assess reasons why orthodontic faculty consider leaving academia, a pretested questionnaire was mailed to 200 full-time (FT) and 200 part-time (PT) faculty randomly selected from the United States and Canada. A total of 144 (72 percent) of FT and 120 (60 percent) PT responded. About 38 percent FT and 25 percent PT were currently considering leaving academia. The average age of each group was about fifty years. Although significant differences were found in fifteen factors affecting the decision to leave, three factors ranked as most important (means> or =3.4) for FTs: salary support, financial support of department, and control over work or destiny. The three factors most important (means>3. 1) for PTs were: challenge of private practice, family commitments, and personal. FT and PT were similar in the most important and least important factors influencing their initial reasons to teach and satisfaction in teaching. However, the reasons why FT considered leaving were work related, while the PT's reasons were more personal. With the current shortage of FT orthodontic faculty becoming imminently greater, it appears that work-related issues could be addressed directly by administration.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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