Professional and veterinary competencies: addressing human relations and the human-animal bond in veterinary medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the nature and degree of coverage of human relations and the human-animal bond in veterinary curricula across North America. The attitudes and opinions of a cohort of veterinary students and alumni about human relations skills and human-animal bond training in the veterinary program was also investigated. METHOD: Twenty veterinary schools across North America were contacted and data were collected regarding their coverage of human relations and the human-animal bond in the curriculum. A survey was developed to measure attitudes and opinions about this type of training. The survey was disseminated to students in years 1 to 4 and alumni from the Ontario Veterinary College (OVC). Data were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Based on availability of contact people, 20 schools in North America were contacted, and all participated in the study. Each of the veterinary schools surveyed has incorporated strategies for teaching human relations skills through required courses, electives, guest speakers, and/or community service programs. The overall participation rate for OVC students was 53%. Ninety-nine percent of all students surveyed agreed that their ability to deal with people using effective human relations skills was a concern, and all students said they would like to receive more training in this area. There was a 41% participation rate for OVC alumni. Fifty-five percent of alumni said they had learned enough in the veterinary program to employ effective human relations skills in practice, yet 65% felt they had not received enough instruction in addressing the human-animal bond specifically. CONCLUSIONS: It is apparent that veterinary schools recognize the need to prepare entry-level practitioners to deal with the human-animal bond and with human relations. It is also evident that students and practitioners value receiving information of this nature in the curriculum and desire further training. Specific learning objectives for veterinary curricula have been outlined based on findings from this study.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".