Pet Poultry Training for Veterinary Practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Keeping backyard poultry in urban areas is a burgeoning trend in the United States. As such, we believe urban pet poultry owners are increasingly likely to seek veterinary services from urban companion-animal practitioners. Traditionally, poultry species have been classified as production animals. Most small-animal practitioners have limited experience or knowledge of these species and hesitate to accept these animals at their practices. We developed a one-day course to train veterinarians in pet poultry (as opposed to commercial poultry) medicine. The course covers poultry examination, diseases, and treatments and provides an introduction to poultry breeds and behavior and the basics of nutrition and husbandry. We believe this type of continuing education program is important for veterinarians because they are often on the front line of human public health issues. In addition, courses of this type increase the number of veterinarians trained to spot serious avian diseases, including foreign diseases and diseases with zoonotic potential. Most important, veterinarians with this training develop the knowledge to contribute to the health and well-being of pet poultry along with their clients' other companion animals.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.088 | 0.013 |
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".