MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125808839 · doi:10.1093/ejo/cjn003

The things you should have learned in dental school and never did (2007)

2008· article· en· W2125808839 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. Pourghadiri

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Orthodontics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDental Education, Practice, Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSyllabusDental practiceCover (algebra)HumanismDentistryMedicineMedical educationPsychologyPedagogyEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dental practice is a complex commercial and social microcosm for which almost all newly qualified dentists are ill-prepared. This is because most syllabi of dental schools do not cover the humanistic or business aspects of dental practice: many dental educators have never run full-time dental practices themselves. Most established and experienced clinicians acquire these practice management skills through trial and error, learning from their mistakes as they go along. This book is a valuable and concise guide for those who are just embarking on their dental careers and those in their first few years of practice. The author uses his experience and insight to provide useful information and guidance on a number of important practice issues such as communication with patients and staff, marketing, and career choices. His pragmatic and practical advice on interpersonal skills is interjected with humour and anecdotes which make the text very readable. It is often said that patients stay with the clinician not necessarily because of his clinical skills, but because of the relationship between them, and the ability of the professional and the practice staff to relate to patients' problems. There are plenty of tips here on empathizing with patients and managing the dental team, which even the experienced practitioner will find beneficial.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0940.048

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of OrthodonticsSame topicDental Education, Practice, ResearchFrench-language works237,207