Teaching the use of resin composites in Canadian dental schools: how do current educational practices compare with North American trends?
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
The placement of resin composites in posterior teeth is now a common procedure in dental practice. The aim of this study was to investigate current teaching of this procedure in Canadian dental schools and to compare trends in teaching with those in the United States. This study complements other investigations in which we examined teaching of the use of posterior resin composites in dental schools in the United States, Ireland and the United Kingdom. A questionnaire was distributed by email to the faculty member in each of the 10 dental schools in Canada with responsibility for teaching the operative dentistry curriculum, including the placement of posterior resin composites. The response rate was 100%. More teaching of posterior resin composites was noted since the time of a survey in the late 1990s. The amount of teaching and clinical experience in the use of posterior resin composites in Canadian dental schools seems to be higher than in dental schools in the United States. As noted in surveys of other countries, variation among Canadian teaching programs was found to persist in relation to techniques and technologies used.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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