Identifying Veterinary Students' Capacity for Moral Behavior Concerning Animal Ethics Issues
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
Veterinarians face unique animal ethics challenges as practitioners and policy advisors to government and industry. Changing societal attitudes, cultural diversity, and the often conflicting needs and interests of patients and clients contribute to moral distress. Yet little has been done to identify veterinarians' capacity to address these animal ethics issues. In this study, first-year and final-year veterinary students in an Australian university were surveyed to explore moral sensitivity, moral motivation, and moral character and their relationship with moral reasoning. The majority of students were concerned about animal ethics issues and had experienced moral distress in relation to the treatment of animals. Most believed that veterinarians should address the wider social issues of animal protection and that veterinary medicine should require a commitment to animals' interests over owners'/caregivers' interests. There was less agreement that the veterinary profession was sufficiently involved in addressing animal ethics issues. The principal motivators for studying veterinary medicine were, in declining importance, enjoyment in working with animals, helping sick and injured animals, and improving the way animals are treated. However, most students had taken little or no action to address animal ethics issues. These results suggest that both first- and fifth-year veterinary students are sensitive to animal ethics issues and are motivated to prioritize the interests of animals but have little experience in taking action to address these issues. Further research is needed to determine ways to identify and assess these moral behavior components in veterinary education to develop veterinarians' capacity to address animal ethics issues.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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