Bibliographic record
Abstract
The integration of research into dental education is necessary to ensure that evidence-based practice reaches the clinical setting and that dentistry remains a scientifically driven health profession. Consequently, dental accreditation standards in the United States and Canada require dental schools to integrate research components into curricula. Organizations (e.g., NIDCR, ADEA, AADR, IADR, and NSRG) provide some opportunities for dental students to experience research. Assessment of the integration of research into dental curricula suggests that US students are interested in learning and utilizing evidence-based practice, but lack adequate time for research participation. Records show limited student involvement in research organizations internationally (i.e., AADR and IADR). Vague accreditation standards and limited research opportunities outside of dental schools may be barriers. We lack an understanding of the status of integration of research into dental curricula internationally, but predict that similar issues exist. We propose that dental institutions consider implementing the following: (1) curriculum components to assess the use of evidence-based practice, (2) faculty and student seminars for discussing evidence-based practice, (3) subsidization of student membership in dental research organizations (e.g., AADR and IADR), and (4) sponsorship of students as institutional representatives at annual research meetings (e.g., IADR, AADR, ADA, and ADEA meetings), with subsequent school-wide dissemination of knowledge attained from attendance.
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 | 0.061 | 0.349 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".