Mentoring. A Quality Assurance Tool for Dentists Part 6: Outcomes: Patient Care, Professional Development and Personal Growth <i>Authentic Happiness for Dentists</i>
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
This paper is the last in a series of six papers that have described different aspects of mentoring. It considers the impact of mentoring when it is used in general dental practice, applying the technique of learning through positive psychology. The first part of the paper considers this approach from a patient's perspective, the second from the perspective of a dentist. Because the impact on the quality of care for the patient is largely mediated through the personality of the dentist, the quality of the dentist's own performance, during his/her professional relationship with the patient, is a critical ingredient. The way that this critical ingredient impacts on quality of care is considered and parallels are drawn between roles assumed in dental practice and those found in industry. The paper also considers the way in which mentoring, as a part of a professional development programme, can enhance dentists' personal skills and performance. It is an opportunity for great personal growth, with increased levels of job and life satisfaction, leading to greater levels of authentic happiness for all those involved, not least for dentists and the dental team.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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