Dentistry’s social contract and dental students’ moral inclusiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Under dentistry's social contract with the public, dental professionals have a social responsibility to address the oral health needs of the population at large. However, dental education places little emphasis on such moral commitments. By ascertaining dental students' stance regarding these notions, we may be able to inform changes in dental education. This paper thus explores dental students' comprehension of dentistry's social contract using the concepts of moral inclusion, moral community and empathy. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey collected information from undergraduate dental students at the Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto (N = 430). Moral inclusion was assessed through the breadth of students' moral community by computing a "moral inclusion score" (MIS) from Likert scale responses to statements that asked students about their duty of care for different population groups, wherein a higher MIS indicated a broader moral community and in turn greater moral inclusiveness. Empathy was assessed using Likert scale responses to statements that gauged the extent to which students understood the effect of social determinants on people's health. Association of the MIS with environmental, institutional and student-related factors was also investigated using non-parametric tests and linear regression. RESULTS: The survey yielded a response rate of 51.4% (n = 221). Overall, students in this sample were morally inclusive and displayed empathy. Regression results showed that the MIS was most strongly associated with choosing a small town/rural area as a future practice location (β = 4.76, 95% CI: 0.52, 9.01) and viewing patients as consumers (β = -3.71, 95%CI: -7.13, -0.29). CONCLUSION: Students in this sample made morally inclusive choices, which implied that they had a basic understanding of the obligations under dentistry's social contract. Improving knowledge and experience with regards to addressing the social and economic determinants of oral health and access to oral health care may positively influence students' perceptions of their professional duties under the social contract.
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 | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".