Current status of undergraduate orthodontic education in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study evaluated teaching hours and mode of instruction of undergraduate orthodontic education dental students in Canada receive, changes implemented by each educational dental institution (EDI) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and plans for mode of orthodontic education delivery post-COVID-19. METHODS: An electronic survey was administered to the program directors of undergraduate orthodontics at each EDI to reveal details regarding the (i) time and details of didactic, preclinical, and clinical experience provided to students and (ii) perceptions of undergraduate program directors about the adequacy of the current curricula. RESULTS: All 10 Canadian EDIs participated in the survey during the year 2021. Most EDIs deliver their orthodontic curricula beginning in the second year of the program (7, 70.0%), continuing through third (7, 70.0%) and fourth (6, 60.0%) years. The number of hours of didactic, preclinical, and clinical instruction varied by as much as 50 h per academic year across different EDIs. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, almost all EDIs (9, 90.0%) maintained the same amount of didactic lecture time yet most switched to synchronous (5, 50.0%) or asynchronous (3, 30.0%) online delivery format. Most EDIs (8, 80.0%) indicated the quality of education was maintained during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: There exists significant variation in undergraduate orthodontic time allotment among Canadian EDIs. During the COVID-19 pandemic, most Canadian EDIs maintained a consistent amount of teaching hours while transitioning to some form of online course delivery. Most program directors indicated they believed students received the same quality of education after the change in mode of course delivery. The future of undergraduate orthodontic education will likely continue the accelerated trend toward online 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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".