Subject Matter Expert and Public Evaluations of a Veterinary Toxicology Course Brochure-Writing Assignment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Veterinary schools are increasingly developing students' communication skills, with an emphasis placed on practice conveying medical and scientific knowledge to different audiences. We describe how patient-centered written communication has been integrated into the training of veterinary students using toxicology-related preventive materials. Third-year veterinary students were given an assignment to prepare a client-focused brochure related to veterinary toxicology. Since 2010, 148 students have completed this assignment, with an average score of 93.4%. Use of a grading rubric was instituted in 2011 and resulted in a more rigorous assessment of the brochures by the course instructors. In this study, we evaluated a sample (n=6) selected from 10 brochures volunteered for further public and expert assessment. Each brochure was measured for readability and assessed with a rubric for perceived usefulness and acceptability by 12 veterinary toxicologists and 10 or 11 adult members of the public attending a college of veterinary medicine open house. Veterinary toxicologist review anticipated that the brochures would be useful for most clients, and the public reviewers confirmed this assessment. Evaluation of the brochures using set marking criteria and readability indexes showed that students had successfully targeted the chosen audiences. Feedback showed that the general public rated the sample brochures highly in terms of quality, usefulness, and interest. Completion of this study has resulted in revision of the grading rubric, an increased use of brochure examples, and additional instruction in readability assessment and brochure development, thereby improving the assignment as a learning exercise.
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 | 0.019 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".