MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2345063736

Dental faculty shortage in the United States and Canada: are there solutions?

2006· article· en· W2345063736 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDental Education, Practice, Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic shortageWork (physics)Succession planningMedical educationPrivate practiceDental educationProcess (computing)PsychologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceMedicineFamily medicineEngineeringComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past several decades, many orthodontic teaching positions have remained unfilled and, despite many efforts, the situation doesn’t seem to change. Currently, there is a need for approximately 300 dental faculty.1 Many of these positions have been open for years and the shortage has reached crisis proportions. To solve this problem, the implicit and explicit requirements regarding hiring and retention of those in dental teaching positions must change. If no one fills these positions, dental programs will not be able to train future dentists properly and public health will suffer. The problem is not only to fill the current open positions, but also to address future needs.2 Most dental faculty are in their 50s and 60s and succession plans seldom exist.3–5 According to estimates, approximately 210 new full-time dental faculty will be needed each year just to maintain current numbers in the United States (6,400 full-time equivalent positions).6–8 In addition to retiring, faculty are also abandoning educational careers to pursue private practice2,8,9 or are planning to do so in the future.10 The reasons are primarily work-related and not necessarily exclusively economic.2,9–11 Currently, part-time faculty are responsible for a large proportion of the duties that were previously carried out by full-time staff.6,8,10 This may be a provisional solution, although disadvantages may include lack of staff involvement in the teaching process. Why are Canadian and American dentists not filling these positions? Among the most important reasons are low salaries compared with private practice earnings; the inability to practise outside the university to supplement income; and the requirements (PhD and expertise in attracting grants) for successful tenure.4,12–14 Several solutions have been proposed.5 For most dental graduates, the decision to enter academia is difficult because of the need to repay the large loans they needed to support their education.6 If more training stipends6,15 were available, student loans would be considerably lower. Salary support is also very important in retaining faculty.10 Other proposed solutions include allowing greater flexibility in moving through academic ranks and making special adjustments for dentistry7,8,16,17; with help from the professional organizations, making academia more attractive to potential immigrants4,15,18; following the medical model,4 whereby faculty can supplement their salary through practices in the school clinics; using federal stipends to subsidize dental training on the condition that the student enters academia for a number of years2,15; temporarily changing the rules to allow foreign-qualified academics to fill the gaps4; soliciting funds from dental graduates to support faculty salaries at their alma mater; and supplementing Dr. Flores-Mir Email: carlosflores@ ualberta.ca �ontact ��uthor Dental Faculty Shortage in the United States and Canada: Are There Solutions?

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)0.000
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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.412
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