How Dental Students are taught the Anatomical Sciences: Survey results from North American basic science course directors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Members of the Anatomical Sciences Section of the American Dental Education Association (ADEA) surveyed North American course directors to assess how undergraduate dental students are taught the anatomical sciences. Web‐based surveys were sent to faculty members charged with teaching anatomy, neuroanatomy, histology, and embryology in the US and Canada. The completed anatomy and neuroanatomy surveys received 100% and 98.5% response rates from the 67 dental schools, respectively. The ongoing embryology and histology survey has had 53 (79.1%) schools respond. The results of these surveys indicate, amongst other things, that: 1) reliance upon medical school faculty and facilities is high; 2) emphasis on clinical topics has increased; 3) a general trend for a decrease in student contact hours is ongoing; 4) the use of computer‐assisted instruction (CAI) tools has increased; 5) a disparity in the number of contact hours reported for anatomical science courses exists among institutions; 6) a pattern of increased use of integrated curricula among dental schools has emerged; and 7) the experience levels of faculty indicate a future need for young faculty competent at teaching in the anatomical sciences.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".