MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4360946316 · doi:10.1002/jdd.13208

“We talk teeth”: Exploring faculty EDIA (equity, diversity, inclusivity, and access) capacity in dental education

2023· article· en· W4360946316 on OpenAlexaff
Lindsay MacDonald, Venise Bryan, Shauna Hachey, Lorraine M. Thirsk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dental Education · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsAthabasca UniversityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)Diversity (politics)Dental educationHigher educationFaculty developmentProfessional developmentSociologyMedical educationMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: There are increasing concerns regarding inequitable educational access and experiences for underrepresented populations in health education, prompting dental faculties to recognize EDIA (equity, diversity, inclusivity, and access) capacity as a strategic priority. Faculty members contribute to the establishment and reinforcement of institutionally engrained norms within learning settings with significant influence on the experience of students. Currently, there is limited literature on faculty EDIA capacity within dental education and minimal evidence to inform barriers to development. This study sought to explore how dental faculty members perceive their personal and institutional EDIA capacity and to identify current strengths and weaknesses of EDIA development within the institution of study and dental education. METHODS: Using a hermeneutic study design, semi-structured interviews were conducted on a convenience sampling of dental faculty members (n = 10) and a thematic, interpretative analysis was applied. RESULTS: Findings revealed six dominant themes impacting EDIA capacity. Knowledge of EDIA language, interfaculty communication, and institutional messaging are identified as weaknesses, whereas informal, community building events for EDIA development are identified as novel strengths meriting prioritization. Motivation to engage in EDIA by faculty members overall is illuminated in relation to emotionally provocative experiences. CONCLUSION: Current institutional communication of EDIA is unconsciously restricting capacity building based on hierarchical and prescribed parameters. Developing capacity in dental education requires a redirection of resources to initiatives valuing social bonding over prescribed box-checking. This study reveals a new narrative of EDIA capacity within dental education and sustainable pathways for development with high transferability to other health programs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.014
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.145
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dental EducationSame topicDental Health and Care UtilizationFrench-language works237,207