Importance of the Human-Animal Bond for Pre-Veterinary, First-Year, and Fourth-Year Veterinary Students in Relation to Their Career Choice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY: The Human-Animal Bond (HAB) is a construct that has received increased attention in the field of veterinary medicine. However, it remains unclear how important the HAB is to veterinary students and how it may be related to their career choice. METHODOLOGY: Questionnaires were administered to 146 veterinary students. A variety of variables was assessed, including sex, year of study, career choice, surgery track, and "farm" versus "city" upbringings. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Overall, students consider the HAB to be an important and valuable construct, one that was influential in their decision to become veterinarians. However, the HAB's importance seems to decrease as students progress in school. Also, students aspiring to food animal careers seem to attach less value to some aspects of the HAB. Females attached more importance to the role HAB plays in their lives than did males; those on "alternative" surgery track assigned more significance to the role of the HAB in veterinary medicine than did those on the "traditional" surgery track. Students also reported that they believe the HAB should be addressed in veterinary curricula.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 it