Peer-Assisted Communication Training: Veterinary Students as Simulated Clients and Communication Skills Trainers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mounting research supports the use of peer-assisted learning (PAL) as a teaching method in human and veterinary medicine. PAL can be a cost-efficient educational tool, saving both financial resources and faculty time. This article reviews a PAL model for teaching communication skills to veterinary medical students. In this model, junior veterinary students served as simulated clients for sophomore veterinary students. Details regarding methods of program delivery as well as evaluation data are presented. Differences between two student cohorts who participated in the PAL educational model and their subsequent evaluation results are discussed. Overall, veterinary medical students reported that this approach was beneficial and that the topic was critical to their success as veterinarians. Students also showed improvement in communication knowledge and reported that peer feedback was a strength of the program. Finally, future directions to assess and strengthen the use of PAL for communication training in veterinary medical education are proposed.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it