International peer review in undergraduate dentistry: enhancing reflective practice in an online community of practice
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To stimulate and enhance student learning in the areas of global citizenship, critical reflection and e-learning, an online international peer review using a purpose-built web platform, has been developed between international dental schools. Since its inception in 2007, n = 6 dental schools from six different countries have participated with n = 384 dental students engaged in online peer review. Project development was conceptually analysed utilising Lave and Wenger's notion of a community of practice (CoP). Analysis drew on the three core components within the CoP organising framework: domain, community and practice. All three components were evident in building project identity. The domain focused on both curriculum and institutional co-operation. The community was evident for both educators and students. Finally, analysis of practice was found to be significant in terms of sustained interaction and collaboration. Empirical evaluation is recommended as the next phase of project design.
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 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 | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it