Australian dental students views on a compulsory internship scheme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission Report suggests introducing an internship period for all newly qualified dental/oral health practitioners in Australia. This study gauged the opinions of undergraduates from three dental schools in Australia.Methods: An online survey collected demographic information on gender and age, the program registered for, year and place of study. The level of support for an internship was gauged using a five-point scale. Open-ended questions on the concerns, advantages and disadvantages of an internship concluded the survey. All students in the participating universities were invited to participate via email.Results: There were 445 responses. Forty per cent of students were supportive of an internship scheme. The level of support differed by gender, age, relationship status, having a previous tertiary qualification and year of study. Males, older participants, those with children and those with previous qualifications were less supportive. The main concerns related to issues around choice, family commitments, location of internship placements and salary levels.Conclusion: Support for an internship scheme for dental graduates elicited a divided opinion amongst dental students. Many issues around financing and logistics have to be addressed before any such scheme could be implemented in Australia: there is a need to consult with dental graduates and promote the benefits to the student body.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".