I’ll Show You Mine If You Show Me Yours! Portfolio Design in Two UK Veterinary Schools
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Portfolios are an attractive addition to the veterinary curriculum because they add to the assessment of competencies, are flexible, and encourage the development of reflective and lifelong learning skills. Veterinary schools at the University of Liverpool and the University of Nottingham, UK, have both recently introduced portfolios for year 1 undergraduate students. The key difference between the two institutions is that one uses the portfolio as a summative assessment, while the other allows formative assessment only. Advantages of assessing the portfolio include engagement in the process and the ability to examine the key professional skill of reflection. Advantages of using the portfolio for formative assessment only are a facilitation of honest self-criticism and that this approach encourages students to view the portfolio as a valuable professional and personal activity. Both portfolio systems will need to be closely analyzed in order to assess these perceived advantages, and the two institutions are learning from each other's experiences. Whether or not the portfolio is summatively assessed, student and tutor training and support are essential. Feedback from these stakeholders must also be analyzed and used to support and shape the portfolios as they become a central part of both veterinary curricula.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it