Self‐perceptions about the profession of dentistry—comparisons between Lithuanian and Polish University graduating students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To examine the perceptions and overall satisfaction about the dental profession amongst the final-year student cohorts from the Lithuanian and Polish universities. MATERIAL AND METHODS: For the Lithuanian cohort, the response rate was 95% (N = 143) and for the Polish cohort it was 99% (N = 123). The survey included a pre-tested questionnaire with multiple questions from three domains: (a) Sociodemographic, (b) Influences of others and (c) Dentistry Profession. RESULTS: Polish university students were older (25.3 ± 2.6 years) than Lithuanian students (23.5 ± 1.6 years), more Lithuanian (83.1%) students were single compared to Polish cohort (34.7%), and more students graduating in Poland (43.4%) were males compared to the Lithuanian students (26.6%). In both countries, students were mostly influenced towards their choice of dentistry by their parents/relatives and positive experiences. Similar profession-related dimensions were identified for student from both countries: (a) the prestige of the profession, (b) job-related security, and (c) self-realisation. Satisfaction with a profession differed substantially between the two student cohorts, but none of the sociodemographic predictors explained this variation satisfactorily. CONCLUSIONS: Sociodemographic differences were found between the students from Lithuanian and Polish universities. Yet, both student cohorts were similarly influenced towards choosing dentistry. The profession's prestige, job security and self-realisation were the most important profession-related dimensions. Polish university students were more satisfied with the profession than Lithuanian students.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".