MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2017197110 · doi:10.3138/jvme.34.2.99

Admissions Test for the Degree Course in Veterinary Medicine in Italy, 2005

2007· article· en· W2017197110 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A. Corradi, E. Bottarelli, Barbara Bertoli, C. F. Flammini

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Medical Education · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTest (biology)DecreeMathematics educationVeterinary medicineGovernment (linguistics)Course (navigation)Degree (music)Medical educationSubject (documents)Index (typography)Degree programMathematicsMedicineComputer scienceLibrary scienceBiologyEngineeringGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Italy, access to the degree course in veterinary medicine is regulated each academic year by a government decree that sets the maximum student intake number for each of the 14 existing faculties. Candidates are selected by means of a multiple-choice test on the following subjects: logic and general knowledge, biology, chemistry, physics, and mathematics. Data for the 2005/2006 academic year are presented here. Overall, 4,495 candidates took the test and 1,415 (31.5%) qualified. The questions relating to physics and mathematics were more difficult than those in other subjects (p < 0.001). Logic and general knowledge was the subject in which candidates' knowledge was best. Separate data for each of the 14 Italian faculties are presented, along with the cut-off score for admission. In addition, a "difficulty admission index" has been calculated for each faculty centre.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.338 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Medical Education→Same topicInnovations in Medical Education→French-language works237,207→