Attitudes of Australian and Turkish Veterinary Faculty toward Animal Welfare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The attitudes of veterinary faculty toward animal welfare were surveyed in four Australian and three Turkish veterinary schools. The former were considered to be typical of modern Western schools, with a faculty of more than 40% women and a primary focus on companion animals, whereas the latter were considered to represent more traditional veterinary teaching establishments, with a faculty of 88% men and a primary focus on livestock. A total of 116 faculty responded to the survey (42 Australian and 74 Turkish faculty members), for response rates of 30% and 33%, respectively. This survey included demographic questions as well as questions about attitudes toward animal-welfare issues. Women were more concerned than men about animal-welfare issues, especially the use of animals in experiments, zoos, entertainment, and sports and for food and clothing. Total scores demonstrated different concerns among Turkish and Australian faculty. The study demonstrates that the veterinary faculty of these two countries have different concerns for animal welfare, concerns that should be acknowledged in considering the welfare attitudes that students may adopt.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".