Serving society first: a time for change in veterinary medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perspectives in Professional EducationT he educational and licensing processes in veterinary medicine are too rigid.They are crippling the profession' s ability to accommodate the changing needs of society.Specifically, agriculture, public health, ecosystem health, and biomedical science are progressively more poorly served by our profession.This situation is inconsistent with the veterinarian' s oath wherein veterinarians solemnly swear to act for "the protection of animal health, the relief of animal suffering, the conservation of animal resources, the promotion of public health, and the advancement of medical knowledge" for the benefit of society. Identifying the ProblemsMembers of our profession appear to realize there is a problem.[1][2][3][4] However, the profession as a whole lacks the determination to take the bold steps necessary to respond to society' s high priority needs, and our present culture and practices are inadequate for this challenge.This is no time for more Band-Aids!The principal elements of the problem are both external and internal to the profession.External elements include the following: ' The broad scope of society' s needs for veterinary medicine.' Continuing explosive growth in knowledge and technology.' Declining ecosystem health and consequent threat to the health, or even to the survival, of vertebrate species whose welfare we profess to protect.' Increasing importance of zoonoses and food safety in public health, attending globalization, and a heightened level of public concern.' Increasing risk of foreign animal diseases associated with globalization.' The potential threat of bioterrorism.' Much higher stakes vested in domestic animals by owners.' Competition from other professions in the health related fields.
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 | 0.061 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.041 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.039 | 0.055 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.005 |
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".