A Survey of Canadian Dental Hygiene Faculty Needs and Credentials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The American Dental Education Association recently reported that the growing shortage of qualified faculty in dental hygiene education programs has reached a crisis situation. The authors hypothesized that Canadian dental hygiene programs will face a similar shortage. However, a review of the literature identified no studies that investigated Canadian dental hygiene faculty shortages. To address this gap in knowledge, a twenty-three-item descriptive survey and cover letter were mailed to the director of each Canadian school of dental hygiene (N=31) in spring 2003. The survey and letter were translated into French for francophone (French-speaking) schools. Follow-up telephone calls were made to nonrespondent programs. Survey results were analyzed using descriptive statistical methods. The response rate was 84 percent. Results revealed that 20 percent of schools had sought to fill empty faculty positions within the year and 47 percent of full-time faculty were forty-nine years or older. Within the next two years, 24 percent of dental hygiene programs in Canada will have full-time faculty positions available, growing to 40 percent within the next five years. Respondents indicated that they preferred faculty to hold a credential above the diploma whether teaching full-time (92 percent) or part-time (88 percent). Other required qualifications included previous teaching experience, current clinical experience, and eligibility for licensure in the province for teaching in Canadian dental hygiene programs.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".