U.S. and Canadian Dental School Involvement in Extramural Programming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This project was undertaken from July 1999 to August 2000 to identify the status of extramural programming (that is, a program that has undergraduate dental students providing any aspect of dental care to individuals in settings outside the main clinical facility of the school) in North American dental schools. A survey instrument was mailed to all United States and Canadian dental schools concerning student involvement in extramural programming. The response rate was 79.7 percent. Of the schools responding, 3.9 percent did not offer extramural programming. The type of extramural sites, the percentage of schools offering each type of site, and the mean number of weeks students are at each site were as follows: hospital clinics--71 percent, 2.5 weeks; public health clinics--65 percent, 6 weeks; schools and day care centers--49, 1.7 weeks; private dental offices--37 percent, 2 weeks; and "other"--29 percent, 2.5 weeks. The average number of weeks spent at extramural site(s) per class was: freshman 1.9 weeks (SD=4.3); sophomores 2.3 weeks (SD=4.2); juniors 2.6 weeks (SD=1.9); and seniors 5.3 weeks (SD=6.7). Of total student time in extramural programming, 43.3 percent was spent delivering basic clinical services, 24.4 percent comprehensive clinical services, 11.8 percent health education, 11.8 percent preventive dentistry, and 8.7 percent community activities. From the data collected it is apparent that the majority of North American dental schools are providing a variety of extramural experiences for their dental students. It was found that student involvement in extramural programming increases gradually from the freshman to the senior year.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".