MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410777319 · doi:10.1002/jdd.13738

Dental and allied dental students’ cultural climate‐related experiences and perceptions: How does ethnicity/race matter?

2025· article· en· W4410777319 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eleanor Fleming, Patrick D. Smith, Marita R. Inglehart

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dental Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Education and Admissions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarassmentEthnic groupCultural competenceIndigenousPsychologyCultural diversityDemographySocial psychologyGender studiesSociologyPedagogyAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The cultural climate of an academic institution affects students' academic performance and well-being. The objectives were to investigate the culture-related experiences and perceptions of dental and allied dental students in the United States (US) and Canada who self-identified in response to a survey question as American Indian/First Nation-Indigenous/Hawaiian Native (AI), Black/African American/Canadian American/African (Black), Hispanic/Latinx (HL), Middle Eastern (ME), East Asian/Southeast Asian/South Asian (AA), White/European (White) or multiracial (M). The comparisons focused specifically on experiences of biases/inequities related to systemic factors (policies/practices) and personal discrimination/harassment, and on perceptions of the cultural climate and climate-related consequences, having a sense of belonging and culture-related clinical competence. Relationships between these constructs of interest were explored. METHODS: Descriptive and inferential statistics such as univariate analyses of variance and chi-square tests were used to analyze the data from 10,279 students who participated in the 2022 American Dental Education Association climate study and responded to the question concerning which academic program they attended. RESULTS: AI and Black students reported the highest mean numbers of experienced biases/inequities related to policies/practices, while White students experienced the lowest mean (Range of sum scores: 0-16: AI:5.06/Black:4.38/ME:4.11/M:3.96/HL:3.54/AA:3.47/White:3.06; p < 0.001). The mean sum score of having witnessed and experienced harassment and discrimination was highest for Black and lowest for HL students (Range: 0-4: Black:0.82/M:0.73/ME:0.66/AA:0.6/White:0.46/AI:0.40/HL:0.36; p < 0.001). Significant differences in mean responses were also found for general climate perceptions (5-point answer scale with 5 = most positive: ME:3.58/Black:3.59/M:3.59/AA:3.66/White:3.73/AI:3.77/HL:3.87; p < 0.001), personal climate-related consequences (ME:3.70/BM:3.72/Black:3.73/AA:3.75/AI:3.83/White:3.85/HL:3.96; p < 0.001), having a sense of community (ME:3.84;Black:3.87/AI:3.88/BM:3.93/AA:3.95/HL:4.09/White:4.11; p < 0.001) and the "Culturally competent clinical care" Index (AA:4.30/M:4.32/AI:4.34/Black:4.37/E:4.40/White:4.43/HL:4.54; p < 0.001). The higher the witnessed/experienced harassment/discrimination was, the less positive the students perceived the general climate (r = -0.52; p < 0.001), their own situation (r = -0.51; p< 0.001), their sense of belonging (r = -0.43; p < 0.001) and cultural competence when providing clinical care (r = -0.24; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Students' ethnic/racial background matters. It affects their perceptions of the school/program climate, their experiences of biases/inequities related to policies/practices and the degree to which they experience and witness harassment and discrimination. These findings should be a wakeup call for faculty and administrators to progress on fulfilling the CODA requirements to create a humanistic environment for all students.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.369 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dental EducationSame topicMedical Education and AdmissionsFrench-language works237,207