A Survey of Faculty Development in U.S. and Canadian Dental Schools: Types of Activities and Institutional Entity with Responsibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the status of faculty development in North American dental schools in 2016. This research project was designed to update and expand upon a 2001 study that reported the first comprehensive results on similar topics and to compare the 2001 and 2016 results. In this study, survey responses were received from 57 of 75 U.S. and Canadian dental schools for an overall response rate of 76%. The results showed a sizeable expansion of faculty development efforts across schools. Twenty-three schools (40%) reported the existence of an Office of Faculty Affairs and/or Professional/Faculty Development with 12 offices established within the past five years, a sixfold increase. Other entities that demonstrated increased participation in dental faculty development were Offices of Academic Affairs, Department Chairs, and Offices of the Dean. Activities with the highest increases in involvement over the past 15 years were faculty development planning, assisting with educational research, assessment of teaching, conflict resolution, team-building, and leadership training. The mean number of full-time equivalents devoted to faculty or professional development in these dental schools was 2.67.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".