Assessment of objectives of post‐doctoral general dentistry programs in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives of hospital-based post-doctoral general dentistry programs in Canada were assessed by questionnaire. Seventy percent (14 of 20) of the program directors responded. Educational goals and objectives were assessed in professional skills and practice management, public health and preventive dentistry, oral medicine and pathology, special needs patient care, trauma and emergency care, restorative/prosthodontic care, endodontics, orthodontics/pediatric dentistry, oral surgery, periodontics, pharmacology, and functioning in a hospital. High rankings of proficiency were related to primary care, restorative/prosthodontic, endodontic, and surgical care. Emergency care, sedation, and pharmacology were also ranked highly. Lower rankings of proficiency were reported in orthodontics, aspects of public health dentistry, practice management, and advanced oral and maxiliofacial surgery. When the results of the Canadian survey were compared with those of a survey of US post-doctoral general dentistry programs, substantial similarity was seen. The findings support continuing reciprocity in accreditation standards between the Canadian and American Commissions on Dental Education and Dental Accreditation.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".