MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Dental Curriculum at North American Dental Institutions in 2002–03: A Survey of Current Structure, Recent Innovations, and Planned Changes

2004· article· en· W2332621664 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dental Education · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDental Education, Practice, Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundación Para La Innovación Y La Prospectiva En Salud En España
KeywordsCurriculumCurrent (fluid)Medical educationDental educationMedicinePolitical sciencePsychologyDentistryPedagogyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the current format of curricula at North American dental schools, determined curriculum evaluation strategies, and identified recently implemented changes as well as planned future innovations. The academic affairs deans of sixty-four North American dental schools received an email survey in August 2002; a second, follow-up survey was sent to nonresponders in February 2003. Online responses were collected and analyzed using SurveyTracker software. The final response rate was 87 percent, with forty-eight U.S. schools and eight Canadian schools responding. Respondents were asked to select descriptive statements about the general organization of their curricula and the degree to which problem-based learning (PBL), case-reinforced learning (CRL), curricular integration, and community-based clinical treatment experiences were incorporated. They were also requested to identify strategies employed to evaluate the curriculum and to report recently completed and desired future curriculum modifications. In regard to desired future curriculum innovations, respondents identified why they were considering curriculum changes and identified resources needed to implement the planned changes. Sixty-six percent of those who responded defined their current curriculum organization as primarily discipline-based with a few interdisciplinary courses. Nearly 60 percent of schools reported that they used PBL and CRL in specific courses or for components of certain courses, but only 5 percent of the respondents indicated that all of their courses used PBL. Regarding integration of major sections of the curriculum, only 7 percent reported that their entire curriculum was organized around themes of interrelated topics. Sixty-four percent reported that their curriculum had required community-based clinical treatment experiences for students. The most frequent innovations in the past three years were increased use of computer and web-based learning (86 percent), creation of patient care experiences early in the curriculum (84 percent), enhancement of competency evaluation methods (84 percent), and curriculum decompression (79 percent). These items plus increased community-based care were the most frequently identified future curricular innovations. There were virtually no differences between the responses of Canadian and U.S. dental schools. The results of this study help to broadly characterize dental curricula at North American dental institutions and identify curriculum modifications anticipated by the academic dean respondents.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.869

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.399 · 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