Knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours toward support resources among first-year students at a Canadian dental school
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study investigated the attitudes, knowledge, and behaviours of first-year Doctor of Dental Medicine (DMD) students toward existing student support resources within the University of British Columbia (UBC)’s Faculty of Dentistry (FoD) and the additional resources needed from the student perspective to inform the development of student support programming. Methods: An online survey was distributed to all 59 first-year DMD students in April 2022. This survey included three parts: 1) demographics; 2) Likert-scale questions inquiring about the perception and utilization of available support resources; and 3) open-ended questions exploring academic and non-academic experiences. A focus group with 5 students followed in May 2022 to further explore the themes emerging from the survey. Results: Forty-six (46) students participated in the survey for a 78% response rate. Survey findings revealed that most student respondents (70%) were familiar with FoD support resources, but only a quarter (24%) of respondents accessed them. Few (26%) were familiar with resources across UBC, and most (98% of total respondents) did not access them. Some (26%) felt stigma prevented them from accessing resources within and outside the FoD. More respondents who identified with the pronouns she/her knew who to contact for academic support in comparison to respondents who identified with the pronouns he/him (70% vs. 53%; P=0.029). No statistical significance was found between age and utilization of resources (P=0.071). Survey themes that emerged from qualitative analysis included: challenges with transitioning into a professional program, imposter syndrome, stigmatization of accessing resources, suggestions for increasing mentorship with senior DMD students, and unfamiliarity with existing resources. Focus group respondents elaborated on their experiences and challenges, including recommendations for further support for student needs. Conclusion: Grounded in the student voice, this study informs future support programming and development of student support systems at UBC and other institutions. Recommendations include improving awareness of the availability and purpose of support resources within the FoD, and expanding peer mentorship opportunities to include senior DMD 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".