Predictors of Academic Performance for Applicants to an International Dental Studies Program in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of U.S. and Canadian dental schools offering programs for dentists with degrees from other countries leading to the D.D.S. or D.M.D. degree has increased recently. This fact, along with the diversity of educational systems represented by candidates for these programs, increases the importance of identifying valid admissions predictors of success in international dental student programs. Data from 148 students accepted into the international dental studies program at the University of the Pacific from 1994 through 2004 were analyzed. Dependent variables were comprehensive cumulative GPA at the end of both the first and second years of the two-year program. The Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) and both Parts I and II of the National Board Dental Examination (NBDE) were significant positive predictors of success. Performance on laboratory tests of clinical skill in operative dentistry and in fixed prosthodontics and ratings from interviewers were not predictive of overall success in the program. Although this study confirms the predictive value of written tests such as the TOEFL and NBDE, it also contributes to the literature documenting inconsistent results regarding other types of predictors. It may be the case that characteristics of individual programs or features of the applicant pools for each may require use of admissions predictors that are unique to schools.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".