Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This resource is a rubric designed for a preclinical removable partial denture prosthodontics course that consists of weekly lectures followed by laboratory sessions. The rubric consists of four sections: surveying, removable partial denture (RPD) design, RPD drawing, and mouth preparations. Surveying and RPD design are introduced to the students in increasing order of difficulty using the Kennedy classification system. The students are provided with undercut locations for the casts as well as a series of digital camera photographs of the surveyed casts from various angles to guide them in completing the surveying exercise. Once they have attempted to design the RPD, a series of digital camera photographs of RPD designs are provided to the students so that they can check their work, review concepts, and make any necessary corrections. These laboratory exercises are designed to provide dental students with the skills to independently survey and design cast RPDs. Continual exposure to the rubric in laboratory sessions reinforces criteria required for clinically acceptable results and facilitates self-evaluation by students. This teaching and learning tool also serves to calibrate instructors and provides a framework for instructors to provide feedback to students. The rubric was first developed in 2005 and has been used since 2006 in a second-year preclinical RPD prosthodontics course. The rubric was developed to provide students with a visual one-page summary of the course that focuses on design of cast RPD frameworks. The checklist format guides students through the exercises and reminds them of criteria that need to be met for clinically acceptable results. The checklist format also allows for efficient delivery of feedback by instructors on students' strengths and weaknesses. The space on the evaluation form for comments is to be used for specific details necessary for the students to make improvements. This educational material appeals to students who are visual learners as well as those who are independent learners. Use of these supplementary learning materials has potential to free up instructors time so that they can assist students with other concerns in the course.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.007 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".