Qualifications and Characteristics North American Dental Deans Seek in Department Chairpersons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine whether deans of North American dental schools perceived that one category of department chairperson skills (leadership or management) was more important than the other for their chairpersons to be successful. A secondary purpose was to determine the professional qualifications and personal characteristics these deans perceived contributed most to the success of department chairpersons and whether those differed by the research emphasis of the school. An email survey was sent in 2016 to all 75 deans of U.S. and Canadian dental schools with graduating classes. Section one of the survey was an open response section asking deans to list the five most essential characteristics of a successful department chairperson. Section two asked deans to rank the importance of eight listed professional qualifications, and the last section asked deans to rate the importance of four leadership and four management traits that could contribute to the success of their chairpersons. Questions about characteristics of the deans and the schools were also included. A response rate of 46.7% was obtained. The most frequent characteristics listed in the open response section were in the categories of vision, academic expertise, and integrity. The three most highly ranked professional qualifications were previous teaching experience, previous administrative experience, and history of external research funding. Four of the eight professional qualifications were ranked differently by deans of high compared to moderate research-intensive schools (p<0.05). Overall, the respondents rated leadership skills more highly than management skills (p=0.002) as important for departmental chairpersons.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".