Graduating dental hygiene students' attainment of the CDHA baccalaureate competencies: Students' self-ratings.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problem statement: . To date there is no scientific evidence to support that graduates from baccalaureate programs have gained these abilities. Purpose: To explore the confidence levels of graduating dental hygiene baccalaureate students in their ability to demonstrate the national baccalaureate competencies. Methods: This article examines the preliminary frequency data from the first year of a 3-year longitudinal study involving the graduating students within the University of British Columbia dental hygiene baccalaureate program. An online, anonymous survey was conducted with these students to rate their confidence level based on a 5-point scale ranging from not confident to confident in the national competencies that include 13 domains with 110 associated subcompetencies. Results: Seventeen of the twenty-two graduating students responded to the survey for a 77% response rate. The competency areas in which they expressed the highest confidence were collaboration (100%), clinical therapy (100%), oral health education (90%), disease prevention (86%), professionalism (82%), and integration of knowledge (80%). The areas in which they expressed the least confidence were policy use (20%) and advocacy (11%) where some respondents were not confident, somewhat confident or unsure. Conclusion: These data provide the faculty with important insights to support curriculum revisions, particularly in the policy use and advocacy domains. The data also contribute to a broader national discussion about the baccalaureate competencies and an exploration of the subcompetencies that may be beyond the scope of baccalaureate education.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".