Graduating Grades and National Dental Examination Results of Foreign‐Trained and Domestic Dental Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, a comparison was made between the 1999-2009 graduates of the two-year structured program for foreign trained dentists at the Schulich School of Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, Canada, and the school's four-year program for domestic students. Both the students' final-year course grades and their results on the National Dental Examining Board (NDEB) written examination and objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) were compared. Differences of ≥ 10 percent in mean final-year grades and ≥ 5 percent for each component of the NDEB examination were considered academically meaningful for the purpose of this analysis. Although there were no academically meaningful and statistically significant differences in the mean overall final-year course grades between the two-year and four-year classes, there were differences in individual courses in prosthodontics, oral medicine, and practice administration. There were no differences (≥ 10 percent) in mean course grades since 2007. An academically meaningful difference in performance was observed on the NDEB written examination in three of the eleven years. There were no meaningful differences (≥ 5 percent) between the two groups in any year for the NDEB OSCE. The relevance and implications of these findings to both the two-year structured program and the newly introduced alternative pathway to certification are discussed.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".