Educational environment as perceived by dental students at King Saud University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Main objectives of the present study were to develop a baseline information about dental students' perception of their educational environment at the College of Dentistry, King Saud University (KSU) in Riyadh; and to investigate the role of four different variables on the students' perception. METHODS: Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM) questionnaire was distributed among 497 undergraduate dental students, in the second week of the first semester of the academic year, from second year students to interns studying in the College of Dentistry of King Saud University (KSU). RESULTS: Response rate was 60.73%. Mean for the total DREEM scores was 108.42/200. DREEM subscales mean were above 50% of the total score. DREEM overall score showed no significant statistical difference among the four variables investigated, except the academic year, where the second year students scored significantly higher (118.36 ± 15.8) compared to the interns (105 ± 21.3). CONCLUSION: Students' perception of educational environment in the KSU College of Dentistry was satisfactory. However, several weak areas were identified which need some attention and consideration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".