MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Oral and Maxillofacial Radiologists: Career Trends and Specialty Board Certification Status

2015· article· en· W2332401267 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrew J. Pakchoian, Didem Dagdeviren, Jessica Kilham, Mina Mahdian, Alan G. Lurie, Aditya Tadinada

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dental Education · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiology practices and education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertificationSpecialtyBoard certificationPrivate practiceFamily medicineMedicineOral and maxillofacial radiologyOral and maxillofacial surgeryMedical educationDentistryResidency trainingContinuing educationManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oral and maxillofacial radiology is the newest specialty to be recognized by the American Dental Association, so knowledge about the parameters of this profession is in the early stages of development. The aim of this study was to understand the current distribution of oral and maxillofacial radiologists (OMFRs) in academia and private practice, the nature of their practice, and trends in their board certification status. An email describing the study's purpose with a link to a survey was sent to "OradList," a listserv that has a majority of OMFRs in the United States and Canada as members. Of the 205 respondents, 46% were female; the age distribution ranged from 25 to over 70 years; and 80% were working full-time. Among the respondents, 66% practiced in an academic setting, 20% in private practice, 8% in both private and academic settings, and 3% in the military. Only 37% of the respondents were board-certified. For OMFRs trained from 1965 to 2009, there was an increasing trend towards becoming board-certified, but a significant decrease occurred after 2009, dropping from 65% to 35% of those trained in those years.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.321
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dental EducationSame topicRadiology practices and educationFrench-language works237,207