Motivations of Orthodontic Residents in Canada and the United States to Treat Patients with Craniofacial Anomalies, Cleft Lip/Palate, and Special Needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the motivation of orthodontic residents in Canada and the United States to treat patients with cleft lip/palate (CLP), craniofacial anomalies (CFA), and special needs (SN). METHODS: In March 2009, an e-mail with a link to a 41-item survey was sent to all orthodontic residents in Canada and the United States (n = 944). RESULTS: Of 944 residents contacted, 339 viewed and 208 completed the survey (22.03%). Using a seven-point Likert scale, residents recognized the importance of treating patients with CLP/CFA/SN. When asked if they plan to treat patients with CLP/CFA/SN, 54.48% responded yes, 13.46% no, and 36.06% were unsure. A total of 38.05% said they would charge the same fee as a typical multiarch case, while 58.05% would charge more, and 60% of fourth-year residents would charge twice the fee. Of the respondents, 43.00% were aware of the established fellowship programs in CLP/CFA/SN. Canadian residents (67.9%) were more enthusiastic about completing a fellowship than Americans were. Of the respondents, 29.33% would complete a 1-year fellowship, while 70.67% would not. A total of 78.4% of male respondents and 77.4% of American residents indicated they would not pursue a fellowship. CONCLUSIONS: Residents supported the importance of treating patients with CLP/CFA/SN, and more than 54% indicated they plan to treat these patients. Residents who indicated that they would not treat these patients sited limited experience and inadequate expertise as the reasons. Less than 30% indicated a willingness to pursue a fellowship program.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".