Canadian dental students’ perceptions of stress and social support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored the relationship between dental school stress and social support reported by undergraduate students in a Canadian dental school. Students completed questionnaires comprised of Dental Environment Scale stress items, social support measures evaluating perceived contact and two proxy measures of social support (marital status and living arrangement). Sixty-two per cent of undergraduate students in all four academic years participated in the study conducted in March--April 2005. Second-year students living with parents had significantly higher adjusted total stress scores (P < 0.001), whilst fourth-year students living with roommates had significantly lower total adjusted stress scores (P = 0.008). Social support systems utilised by students included teacher, parental, student and relationship support. Students who received more support from teachers and from students inside and outside dental school had lower adjusted total stress scores. Multiple regression analysis assessing the effect of social support on total adjusted stress scores identified two significant variables after adjustment: second-year students living with parents (P < 0.001) and low teacher support (P = 0.032). This study identified social support and proxy measures as significant predictors of dental school stress in Canadian dental students. Further studies are needed to elucidate the role of social support and proxy measures as potential dental school stress alleviators.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".