Contemporary appraisal of factors influencing pediatric dental program directors' selection of residents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: With the increasing number of applicants and changes to information available in applications, pediatric dentistry program directors must adapt the resident selection process. The evaluation approach was significantly impacted when the National Board Dental Examination (NBDE) changed to a pass/fail grading system. The purposes of this are study to examine what criteria pediatric dentistry program directors now use to select residents, and to evaluate current criteria against those used in the past. METHODS: A 30-item survey was structured similar to a previous questionnaire used in 2005. An invitation to participate was sent via email to all pediatric dentistry program directors for the 82 Commission on Dental Accreditation (CODA)-accredited programs located in the United States and Canada. Anonymous responses were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 58 responses (70.7% response rate). The overall most important factors were clinical grades, dental school class rank, dental school grade point average (GPA), and applicant's essay. The least important factors were the applicant being a graduate of the program's dental school, Advanced Dental Admission Test (ADAT) score, and applicant's fluency in a second language. The factor that had the most significant increase in importance from 2005 is the applicant's essay, followed by dental school reputation and the dental school's pediatric program reputation. CONCLUSIONS: The most important factors to program directors are clinical grades, dental school class rank, dental school GPA, and applicant's essay. The applicant's essay has increased in importance since 2005.
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 | 0.011 | 0.041 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".