Veterinary Practice Management: Teaching Needs as Viewed by Consultants and Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study was conducted to assess veterinary practice management (VPM) educational and research needs from the perspective of consultants and teachers. An online focus group discussion was designed, involving two separate groups (consultants and teachers). One week was allocated to each group, with five to eight questions posed per day. Pseudonyms were used to provide confidentiality. Teachers were selected by inviting the primary VPM course coordinator at each AAVMC school. Consultants required at least two recommendations and were selected in a stratified, non-random manner to achieve both geographic and disciplinary diversity. Participation was stronger within the consultant group: 98 pages of data were generated by the consultants and 35 pages by teachers. Participants agreed that the sub-optimal economic conditions that characterize the veterinary profession are reflective of relatively low-level management skills. This situation establishes the need to strengthen VPM educational and research programs. Many specific suggestions were provided. It was recommended that a cooperative effort between academia and the private sector be employed. However, participants recognized that successful DVM education programs in VPM will be difficult to achieve and sustain without strong support from college administrators and faculties.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".