A Model for Teaching Raptor Medicine in the Veterinary Curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Injured or sick wild avian species, especially raptors (birds of prey, including hawks, owls, falcons, and eagles), can present different challenges to veterinary students and veterinarians who are trained in companion avian medicine (e.g., parrot medicine). Proper capture and restraint, feeding, housing, and certain diagnostic and treatment techniques involving raptors require different skills, knowledge, and resources than working with parrots. We developed an innovative raptor medicine program that enables students to acquire proficiency in safe capture, restraint, and examination techniques and in common diagnostic and treatment procedures. A self-assessment survey was developed to determine students' confidence and proficiency in 10 procedures taught in the lab. Groups were compared by class status (Year 1 vs. Year 2 and 3) and level of prior raptor experience (non-experienced or experienced). In surveys conducted before and after teaching two sets of raptor training labs, students rated themselves significantly more proficient in all 10 diagnostic and treatment procedures after completing the two raptor laboratories. The greatest improvements were observed in technical skill procedures such as fluid administration, intramuscular injections, cloacal swabs, venipuncture, and bandaging. Our approach to incorporating elective wildlife learning experiences into the veterinary curriculum may be replicable in other veterinary schools, with or without a wildlife rehabilitation program.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".