Perception of Virtual Learning among Dental Residents and Faculty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Aim to assess the perceptions of virtual learning among dental residents and faculty and employ Regulatory Focus Theory (RFT) to understand the impact of motivational orientations on virtual learning during COVID pandemic. Methods: 46 dental residents and 10 faculty in Upstate New York participated in the study (June -August 2021). Questionnaires were used to collect demographics, perceptions of virtual learning, burnout, and RFT types (promotion and prevention focus). Multiple regression analyses were used to examine factors associated with perceptions of virtual learning and burnout. Results: Overall, 70% of residents and 44% of faculty found virtual learning effective. Younger residents with less experience preferred virtual learning more than their older, experienced peers. Residents trained outside the U.S. and Canada favored in-person learning more than those trained within. Furthermore, residents with a higher promotion focus score found virtual learning more interactive for didactic courses. Additionally, 52% of residents experienced burnout, with a higher incidence among females (p=0.044). Conclusions: Virtual learning is well-received by dental residents and faculty, with potential for continued use post-pandemic. Future efforts should focus on creating an inclusive and supportive educational environment that meets the motivational and well-being needs of dental residents and faculty.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".