Why do we need this? Perception and integration of basic and clinical sciences by dental hygiene students.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Integrating the basic sciences into a clinical curriculum is critical for students' understanding of physiological processes in patient care. Health professional students with a better understanding of basic science principles have better diagnostic accuracy and a more comprehensive understanding of clinical cases. Traditional health professional curricula offer discrete basic science and clinical courses, resulting in students who struggle to recognize the relevance of the material and incorporate fundamental science knowledge into their later clinical education. This study examined student perceptions of integrating foundational sciences into their health professional program and evaluated the extent of that integration with clinical oral medicine and pathology knowledge using a knowledge integration scale. Methods: Students in the second to fourth years of the Dental Hygiene Program at the University of Alberta, Canada, were invited to participate in an anonymous survey regarding their perceptions of the integration of sciences in teaching. In a separate invitation, third- and fourth-year dental hygiene students were invited to complete a graded measure of knowledge integration. Results: Significant differences were found between year cohorts in the perceptions of integrating basic sciences into the clinical curriculum. Content analysis of descriptive student comments revealed the benefits of integrating clinical and foundational science knowledge. There were no significant differences between third- and fourth-year dental hygiene students in measured integration of foundational science and clinical knowledge. Conclusions: Further studies are needed to shed light on faculty perceptions and identify strategies to facilitate curricular integrations at the faculty level.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".