Graduating Dental Students’ Views of Competency Statements: Importance, Confidence, and Time Trends from 2008 to 2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Competency documents are used in dental education as both an educational framework and an accreditation instrument. The aim of this study was to analyze the perceptions of graduating dental students at the University of British Columbia (UBC) regarding the importance of each competency statement, as well as to assess their confidence in their abilities associated with each statement. The instrument was based on the survey developed by Schönwetter et al. at the University of Manitoba using the Association of Canadian Faculties of Dentistry competency document. The current study surveyed UBC graduating students in the years 2008 through 2012. The response rates ranged from 66.7% to 95.9%, averaging 77.5% across all five years. The results showed that, overall, the students rated all the competencies as important, but they rated their confidence lower than the perceived importance. Correlation coefficients averaged a moderate correlation of 0.376 for all competency statements except the five with the greatest discrepancy between perceived importance and confidence. The competencies the students perceived as most important tended to be associated with tasks frequently performed during predoctoral dental education. The instrument used in this study can help other academic dental institutions identify patterns of students' perceived competency importance and confidence to inform allocation of teaching time and resources and adopt new methodologies to address identified areas of need.
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 | 0.010 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".