The experience of stress in a Canadian dental school : a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dental education is a stressful experience for some students. Dental students have been found to report stress levels higher than in the general population, with 36% of students reporting significant psychological distress. Canadian dental students have reported an increase in anxiety, depression and hostility. No research was found to have investigated dental education stress using a qualitative analytical approach. Objectives: This study aimed to better understand the experience of stress among dentistry students using qualitative methodology. Methods: 12 recent graduates from the McGill University Faculty of Dentistry were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guide. Themes from the interviews were identified and coded by reading and rereading the texts until information-saturation occurred. Results: Firstly, four sources of stress were identified: workload pressure, fear of failure, faculty relations, and transition stress. Secondly, three effective coping mechanisms were highlighted by the students: seeking support, focusing on things that they can control, and participating in extra-curricular activities. Finally, three types of students with respect to their experience of stress were found: the highly stressed student, the moderately stressed student, and the relaxed student. This typology of dental student is new information that has not been studied before. Conclusion: Faculties need to identify and aid highly stressed 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 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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".