MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dentists’ ethical practical knowledge: a critical issue for dental education

2009· article· en· W2094412860 on OpenAlex
Diego Machado Ardenghi

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal Of Dental Education · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDental educationContext (archaeology)PsychologyEngineering ethicsMedical educationPedagogyMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dentists, just like teachers, when moving from school to the workplace (dental offices and classrooms respectively), may find it difficult to apply theories learned during formal education to the complexities of the workplace environment. These difficulties constitute a critical issue for dental education in the area of ethics. In teacher education, the knowledge teachers develop for dealing with the situations they encounter in the classroom is called teachers' practical knowledge. In this study, I discuss the concept of teachers' practical knowledge within the context of dentistry, focusing on the ethical dimensions of dentistry practice, arguing for a dentists' ethical practical knowledge. In this sense, I articulate the similarities between teachers' practical knowledge and its equivalent in dental education, suggesting alternatives for dental education that could foster the development of dentists' ethical practical knowledge.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.577
Teacher spread0.487 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it