Assessment of Literature Review Teaching Methods in Periodontics Programs in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypothesis: We first hypothesize that there is diversity of teaching methods and resources available for residents in periodontics programs through North America. Secondly, we want to discover the top articles listed by different periodontics program in order to unify of content for teaching in North America. \nObjective: To provide information regarding teaching methods and contents in order to prepare residents for ABP in every program. \nMethods: Part one: The initial survey was sent to the 63 Periodontics Department Program Directors of American and Canadian schools. Included was an 8-page questionnaire and blank flash drive to be used in transmitting detailed literature review subjects and articles. The responding schools were then categorized into five different regions: 1- East, 2- West, 3- Midwest, 4- South, 5- Canada. Reponses were given a numeric code with the identification of the school linked to the code stored separately to ensure program confidentiality.\nPart two: The original excel spread sheet was composed of 6 columns in order of article title, school number, region, institution’s choice of topics, and classification based on classic/ current/ or implant literature. In order to unify the referencing layout for all articles, the American Medical Association (AMA) format was used. \nResults: The results show no significant differences between selected regions with regards to teaching methodology of classical, contemporary, implant literature review courses. Formulated cross tabulation reveals different frequencies in individual responses. However, it clearly reveals significant differences in the contents of the courses. \nConclusions: This research emphasizes the need to unify and comprehensively set forth a protocol in selecting the contents of literature reviewed for every resident at every level of their education. In addition, providing consolidated and comprehensive course contents can help every resident in national exam preparations.
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 | 0.170 | 0.413 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.043 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".