Insights from Students Following an Educational Rotation Through Dental Geriatrics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about how dental students respond to dental geriatrics. This article describes a qualitative analysis of reflective journals submitted over two years by ninety-two senior students who participated in a brief clinical rotation in long-term care facilities. We used an inductive interpretive approach to analyze the journals. Eight themes emerged from the analysis: 1) complexity of the institutional environment; 2) heterogeneity of the resident population; 3) multidisciplinary environment; 4) record keeping; 5) interactions with residents; 6) the difficulty of oral health care for frail residents; 7) bridging the gap between theory and practice; and 8) the emotional impact of the clinical experiences. Apparently, the students appreciated the opportunity to witness the complexity of care in a multidisciplinary context and to observe a practical program of oral health care. They described the rotations as unique and emotionally challenging but very worthwhile. Overall, they wrote positively about their experiences with the elderly residents, acknowledged the contribution of the rotation as important to their clinical maturation, and reported that the experience enhanced their appreciation of a dentist's professional responsibilities.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".