Veterinary Students and Non-academic Stressors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Students in veterinary schools can experience stress in balancing the different demands on them-academic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and professional or work related-as well as managing potential conflict between animal and human interests. Practicing veterinarians report many similar stressors and reactions. Stressful stimuli produce stress reactions that can be inimical to physical and psychological well-being, and students' performance in veterinary programs can be adversely affected if they do not have coping resources. While there has been some research into stress among university students in general, and among medical students in particular, there is little on the experience of veterinary students. This article describes a study by the School of Psychology, commissioned by the Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, at Murdoch University in Western Australia. It was designed to investigate the levels and causes of stress among, and the frequency and type of coping strategies used by, fourth- and fifth-year students. Results indicate that the students in this cohort faced frequent stressors and felt at least moderately stressed but did not routinely and systematically use a range of coping strategies. Academic stressors and perceived responsibilities attached to moving into practical or professional areas figured strongly and were associated with higher levels of stress in the students, in particular physical sequelae. Though the numbers were small, it is of concern that some students were using measures that were potentially harmful. Some recommendations are made here about measures that veterinary programs may be able to incorporate to address stress in their students. Information is included on current strategies within the curriculum to manage potential stressful situations as part of students' professional development.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".