Investigating the potential for students to provide dental services in community settings.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some dental educational institutions in North America have incorporated community-oriented programs into their curriculum. The purpose of this study was to investigate the potential for the clinical placement of Ontario's dental and dental hygiene students in community-based settings. Key informant interviews were used to collect data. The study group consisted of 15 key informants from 9 potential placement sites and 4 educational institutions in Toronto and London, Ontario. The textual data were analyzed qualitatively to identify important issues regarding a clinical placement program. Results showed that there is strong support for the placement of students in community-based clinics; however, the degree to which health centres can accommodate students varies. The majority would not set any limit on the types of dental services that students could provide as long as the services were within the students' competencies. Funding was identified as a barrier to the implementation of such a program, with most of the organizations not able to contribute financially. None would be able to provide sufficient supervision without additional funding. These results indicate that a clinical placement program would be a welcome addition to the training of dental and dental hygiene students, but that external funding for supervision and operational expenses must be available before a program can be instituted.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".