The dental COVID‐19 paradox: Disparity in behaviors inside and outside dental schools in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To describe the personal and professional behavior and assess the perceptions of protection and fear of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) among faculty, staff, and students from all 10 Canadian dental schools during the second year of the pandemic. Method Participants from a Pan‐Canadian prospective study answered monthly questionnaires about their activities between April 2021 and March 2022. In May 2022, additional questions were asked about their perception of protection, fear of infection, and instances of COVID‐19 testing. Results Six hundred participants were initially recruited. Over time, the participants spent less time at home and increased their participation in indoor social activities, a trend influenced by the fluctuations in COVID‐19 cases (β = ‒0.02). Over 90% of the participants were fully vaccinated, which decreased their fear of contracting the virus (χ2[4, 241‒243] = 196.07, p < 0.0001). Yet, their attitude toward protective measures did not change, and they followed them within school. Conclusions This work shows a paradoxical behavior among dental students, staff, and faculty members in Canadian dental schools. While factors such as the vaccine's limited efficacy and a desire to protect others may contribute to stringent protective behaviors within dental schools, the mandatory nature of these measures was likely the primary motivator for the compliance. Despite potential efforts to minimize exposure to the virus during risk periods and the frequent COVID‐19 testing, this paradoxical behavior raises questions about professional responsibilities extending beyond the workplace. Thus, dental schools should incorporate education about the rationale behind following different protocols and the potential consequences of outside school behaviors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".