Responsibility in dental praxis: an activity theoretical perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the transitions practitioners undergo as they move from dental school to their first job in a dental clinic and their learning in the workplace. The paper aims to investigate their use of ethical principles as they engage in practice, providing a theoretical explanation for the gap practitioners experience when moving from the school to the workplace, and also suggesting some viable alternatives for dental education. Design/methodology/approach The database for this study consists of videotaped interviews with dentists. To analyze our data we followed the principles of interaction analysis, analyzing the data both individually and collectively, until some hypotheses were generated. Then, discourse analysis was used to analyze the interviews. Findings From an activity theoretical perspective, the results show that dentists can and do learn ethical principles when working in their dental clinics, interacting with patients, and the findings and suggestions are of especial interest for curriculum planning and development in educational institutions. Practical implications This study suggests that theoretical discussions about ethics are not enough to provide practitioners with the skills necessary to work ethically when interacting with patients. From the findings a complementary approach to teach ethics in dental schools is suggested. Originality/value Workplace learning has become a preferred topic within many disciplines, such as, for example, sociology, education, and anthropology. However, although there is an established field of medical sociology, little if any attention on workplace learning has been paid to the health sciences in general and dentistry in particular.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".