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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.106 | 0.063 |
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".