Comparison of self‐perceived competence of recent dental graduates from the Universities of Otago and Dalhousie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study investigates and compares the self-perceived competencies of recent dental graduates from the University of Otago (UoO) (Dunedin, New Zealand) and Dalhousie University (DU) (Nova Scotia, Canada). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A validated survey was emailed to recent graduates from the UoO (December 2019) and DU (May 2020). Chi-squared statistical analysis examined the differences between groups. RESULTS: The response rate was 73% from the UoO class and 75% from the DU class. Out of 59 competencies, 11 items showed a significant difference. Orthodontics and the surgical aspects of dentistry were the main areas where significant differences have been observed between the two cohorts. Out of the four items in orthodontics, a significantly higher proportion of DU graduates felt more competent than graduates from UoO in three items ("performing orthodontic treatment planning," "performing space maintenance/regaining" and "performing orthodontic full-arch alignment"; p < .001). Similarly, graduates from DU felt significantly more competent in three of the eight items in the oral and maxillofacial surgery domain ("managing complications of oral surgery," "performing soft-tissue biopsies" and "managing trauma to the dentofacial complex"; p < .001), all requiring surgical training and skills. CONCLUSION: Of the differences identified, graduates from DU reported higher levels of self-perceived competence compared with their UoO counterparts, especially in the orthodontics and oral and maxillofacial surgery domains. This could be because DU students have more practice in these specialties during their training. The results suggest that increased exposure for UoO students in these areas may be beneficial to their self-perceived competence.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".