The Influence of Industry on Dental Education
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
Academic dental institutions face the growing challenge of securing the resources needed to develop a curriculum that incorporates current innovation and technology to ensure that students' learning experiences are relevant to current dental practice. As a result, university-industry relationships are becoming increasingly common in academe. While these relationships facilitate curriculum relevance, they also expose students to external market forces. The purpose of this study was to explore the influence of industry on dental education using a qualitative research study design. Analysis of semistructured interviews with thirteen Dalhousie University dental faculty members revealed two primary themes that suggest a tension between the traditional hierarchical organizational structures guiding curriculum (i.e., authoritarianism) and industry's quest for profit (i.e., entrepreneurialism). Additional themes demonstrate a belief that industry directly influences students' knowledge and understanding of evidence as well as their experience with both the formal and informal curricula. Industry's presence in academe is a concern. Dental educators, as stewards of the profession, must be nimble in brokering industry's presence without compromising the integrity of both the educational program and the teaching institution as a whole.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 it