Bibliographic record
Abstract
A midst weak economic numbers coming from veterinary hospitals around the country, associate salaries beat inflation in 5 of 10 provinces. Nationally, the average associate veterinarian experienced a 3% salary increase; 2% better than inflation which is running uncharacteristically low at 1%. Inflation, both nationally and provincially, was down from a high of 3% two years ago; the current rate of 1% nationally and a range of 0% to 3% provincially provides an opportunity for staff veterinarians to get real gains in income even with mediocre wage increases. Any wage increase above the rate of inflation is considered to be a “real economic gain” because it provides the individual with more purchasing power than before. Figures for average associate salaries come from the 2013 Survey of Associate Compensation and Benefits. This survey was conducted by the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association in conjunction with the provincial associations and corporate sponsors, PetSecure, Merck Animal Health, Scotiabank, and Idexx Laboratories. Results are provided for individual provinces (Table 1). Table 1 Comparison of average associate salaries for 2012 and 2013 The 2013 survey was distributed to all associates across the country; 1037 surveys were returned for a 26% response rate. Figures in the report are generally accurate to 2%, 19 times out of 20. Respondents were asked to provide information related to their current salary and benefits from private practice in 2013. The survey examined several characteristics such as type of practice, seniority, and location, and evaluated the effect the characteristics had on salary. Many trends were inconsistent with half the provinces going in one direction and half going in the other. Nationally the average increase of 3% was ahead of inflation but only 5 provinces saw average increases that beat inflation. Alberta surged ahead for the second year with a 5% gain in average associate salaries and with provincial inflation only running at 1%, the real gain for associates amounted to 4%. Last year, the average associate in Alberta experienced a 4% increase in salaries. The other province with higher than average salary increases was New Brunswick with a 6% increase. New Brunswick posted a lower inflation rate of 1% and veterinarians in that province were able to experience an average real gain in salaries of 5%. This was good news considering that last year there was zero growth in associate salaries in New Brunswick. Provinces that experienced decreases in salaries included British Columbia, Newfoundland, and Prince Edward Island. The decrease in wages for these provinces reflects changes in seniority levels in the sample. Consistently, veterinarians with less seniority earn lower salaries and in these 3 provinces, there are smaller samples and more, less-experienced veterinarians reporting than in previous years. It is not expected that individual veterinarians experienced salary cuts. The other 5 provinces experienced real increases in wages between 0% and 2%. Nationally, the real increase in associate salaries was 2%. What is the reason for weak increases? We know from the 2012 Practice Owners Economic Survey (1) that veterinary practices across the country are suffering with declining client numbers and stagnating revenues and under these economic conditions practice owners are less likely to offer higher increases in salaries for staff veterinarians. To counter a weakened market for associate salaries, some associate veterinarians are offering to take on some of the financial risk and it is turning into significant increases in wages. The key factors that contribute to increased salaries for associates include type of practice, location, seniority, and method of payment. In the short run, there is little that can be done to affect demographics or seniority, but associates can change the way they are getting paid. Associates who are paid a commission based on the gross revenue they bring in earn 23% higher full-time salaries than the average. Compensation based on revenue is attractive to the practice owner because the associate is shouldering some of the risk that goes with paying a higher salary. The threat of inconsistent or declining revenues stands in the way of most salary increases. If a practice owner was guaranteed that an associate could attain a revenue target, then they could be more forthcoming with salaries. The problem is what comes first — does the associate wait to hit the revenue target before salary goes up or does the practice owner offer the higher salary and hope the associate makes the revenue target. With commissioned-based pay you get the chicken and egg. The owner gets the assurance that the higher wage will only get paid if the revenue target is met and the associate is guaranteed to get the higher pay when they hit the target. Information on compensation pay rates is available in the Report on Associate Compensation and Benefits (2) offer through the specific provincial veterinary medical associations. Associate salaries increased 3% in 2013. The increase was above the rate of inflation nationally but only half the provinces saw increases above the rate of inflation. A weakened veterinary economy appears to be what is holding back associate salaries and, until the economy turns around, associate veterinarians wanting to beat the odds will have to look to creative payment methods like compensation-based pay.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.123 | 0.049 |
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".