Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) as a Summative Evaluation Tool in a Ruminant Health Management Rotation for Final-Year DVM Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) has been used for 10 years at the Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, to evaluate the clinical competencies in ruminant health management of final-year DVM students. The performance of these students in the summative assessment, which includes the use of OSCEs, was compared to their formative assessment, given at the end of the rotation. Specifically, classification of students' performance as poor (bottom 10% of the grade range versus "serious deficits") or superior ("A grade" versus "exceeds expectations") was compared. Agreement between the two types of assessment is slight, regardless of whether assessing diagnostic process skills or technical skills--and regardless of whether all students were assessed or only those enrolled in food-animal or mixed streams in their final year--which suggests that the two assess different types of skills. OSCEs are a useful and viable tool for objectively assessing clinical skills in ruminant health management.
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".