A survey assessing the impact of a hosPital‐based General Practice Residency Program on dentists and dents I practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this survey was to evaluate the outcome of completing a general practice hospital-based dental residency program. A survey was mailed to all individuals who had completed a general practice residency program (resident) between 1980 and 1996 and to dentists who had not completed a hospital program (undergraduate). The responses were evaluated by Fisher's exact test. Seventy-four percent of the resident group and 68% from the undergraduate sample group returned the questionnaire. Approximately half the residents were in general dental practice. Twenty-six percent were involved in specialty dentistry, 7% in hospital dentistry, and 20% in teaching at a dental school. Of the undergraduate dentists, more than three-quarters were in general practice, 5% were entered into specialty programs, 1% were involved in hospital dentistry, and 15% taught at a dental school. Half of the residents held staff privileges in a hospital or ambulatory setting, compared with 16% of undergraduates. Forty-three percent of the residents provided consultation in a hospital or long-term-care facility, compared with 21% of the undergraduates. Practice characteristics suggested enhanced clinical skills in oral surgery, periodontics, emergency dental care, and oral medicine/pathology in those completing the hospital program. The findings of this study confirm that the outcome of completing a hospital program is a change in practice profile, site of practice, services for complex patients, and continuing involvement in teaching.
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 | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".