Assessment of Incidental Learning of Medical Terminology in a Veterinary Curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to determine whether students in a veterinary curriculum at Mississippi State University would gain an understanding of medical terminology, as they matriculate through their courses, comparable to that obtained during a focused medical terminology unit of study. Evaluation of students' incidental learning related to medical terminology during the 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 academic years indicated that 88.7% and 81.9% of students, respectively, scored above 70% on a medical terminology exam by the end of the first year of the curriculum. For the 2004/2005 academic, 67.6% increased their percentage of correct answers above 70% from the first medical terminology exam to the third. For the 2005/2006 academic year, 61.1% of students increased their score above 70% from the first to the third exam. Our data indicate that students can achieve comprehension of medical terminology in the absence of a formal terminology course.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".