Changes in Veterinary Students' Attitudes Toward the Rural Environment and Rural Veterinary Practice: A Longitudinal Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a paucity of research regarding veterinary students' attitudes toward the rural environment and rural veterinary practice and how these attitudes might change over the course of a veterinary medicine program that includes rural clinical experience. Using a 23-item questionnaire, attitudes toward rural lifestyle, rural work-life balance, opportunities for career and skill development in rural veterinary practice, and inter-professional teamwork in the rural environment were assessed at the beginning and completion of a four-year veterinary medicine program. Eighty-six students (74.4% female) were included in this Canadian study over a six-year period. Thirty-one participants (36.1%) were rural students. Overall, students' attitudes toward the rural lifestyle, rural work-life balance, and inter-professional teamwork in rural veterinary practice all significantly decreased (p<.001) over the course of the program. As compared to urban students, rural students had significantly higher rural lifestyle scores at both the beginning (p<.001) and end (p<.01) of the veterinary medicine program. A less positive attitude toward living and working in a rural environment could influence students to exclude rural veterinary practice as a career choice. Rural clinical experiences designed to sustain or increase veterinary student interest in rural practice may not be sufficient to support positive rural attitudes. Given the demand for rural veterinary services in developed countries, the implications of this study may extend beyond Canada.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".