Developing a Mentoring Culture in Dentistry. Making a Difference in a Changing World
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper follows the recent series published in Primary Dental Care on the subject of mentoring. It is intended to place mentoring in a broader societal, professional, ethical and philosophical context. The introduction of the mentoring approach into human affairs in general, and the workplace in particular, is evidence of a fundamental shift both in the way we work together as individuals and in how we view and value ourselves as human beings. This paper reflects on the changes in thinking and attitudes in society that have led to the emergence of mentoring and coaching as elements in the approach of positive psychology. It then seeks to learn from the experience of the adoption of mentoring and coaching in other areas of work and society. It goes on to consider what impact this might have on underlying beliefs and attitudes within the profession of dentistry, and who might become the mentors and the mentees. Finally, it presents mentoring as an expression of the values and the culture of a caring profession seeking to promote the 'good life' both for its patients and for its practitioners.
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 | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| 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".