Factors Associated with Practice Decisions of Nebraska Veterinarians Regarding Type of Practice and Community Size
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nebraska veterinary practitioners were surveyed to collect data about background characteristics and other factors related to veterinarians' decision to include or not include food animals in their practices and to practice in rural versus urban communities. Background characteristics that were significantly (p < or = 0.05) associated with choosing food-animal practice included growing up on a working farm or ranch; having parents who owned livestock; growing up in a town with a population of less than 10,000; majoring in animal science at university; being male; and having a primary interest, at the time of entering veterinary college, in food animal-exclusive or mixed-animal veterinary practice. The primary factor for choosing the community in which to practice was rural/urban lifestyle for rural veterinarians, while this factor was second for urban veterinarians. For all groups of veterinarians, the primary consideration in selecting their current practice was the species orientation of the practice. The primary reason for not choosing food-animal practice was better working conditions and lifestyle in companion-animal practice, followed by greater interest elsewhere.
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 | 0.009 | 0.140 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".