Students’ motivating influences for selecting dental hygiene and a 4‐year degree: A retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: A growing body of research is exploring why applicants select to enrol into a 4-year dental hygiene degree in Canada when the entry-to-practice credential remains a diploma. The aims of this study were to investigate first-year entry-to-practice students' motivating influences for choosing the dental hygiene profession and enrolling in a baccalaureate program. METHODS: Between 2013 and 2018, first-year students in the University of British Columbia's Bachelor of Dental Science program completed orientation surveys. A secondary data analysis was conducted on a total of 127 orientation surveys from a cumulative first-year population over a 5-year period. 159 students participated in the surveys for an 80% response rate. Survey questions were open-ended. Saldaña's approach to coding was used to analyse the descriptive data for emerging themes. RESULTS: The primary reasons for choosing dental hygiene as a profession included personal desire (65%) which involved students' desire to help others, as well as past experience (32%) relating to personal, goal or external experiences. Two prominent themes for choosing a dental hygiene degree emerged and included expanding career opportunities outside of clinical practice (82%) and broadening and deepening one's knowledge base (34%). CONCLUSIONS: The results provide insight about the factors that influence prospective dental hygiene students to pursue a baccalaureate credential that is presently beyond the entry-to-practice requirements for the dental hygiene profession in Canada.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".