Advanced Placement, Qualifying, and Degree Completion Programs for Internationally Trained Dentists in Canada and the United States: An Overview
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian and U.S. universities are faced with the challenge that they are not graduating enough dentists to meet the future needs of the Canadian and U.S. populations. Foreign-trained dentists represent a valuable resource to society and the economy. Dental programs have been established to train foreign-trained dentists for some or all of the following reasons: public need for health care services, income generation for universities, and demand by foreign-trained dentists who desire to practice dentistry in Canada or the United States rather than in their own nation. Changes implemented by the National Dental Examining Board (NDEB) of Canada in 2000 and by the Commission on Dental Accreditation (CODA) in the United States in 1986 have resulted in foreign-trained dentists no longer being able to gain dental licensure in these countries strictly through a certification examination. Foreign-trained dentists are now required to apply for and complete a two- to three-year advanced placement, qualifying, or degree program at a Canadian or U.S. dental school prior to receiving licensure to practice. The study reported in this article investigated the various types of advanced placement, qualifying, or degree programs available to foreign-trained dentists wishing to practice in either Canada or the United States and the differences among these programs. This research provides a better understanding of the various commonalities and differences among Canadian and U.S. programs for internationally trained dentists.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".