Identifying the Needs of Veterinary Students and Recent Alumni in Establishing a Student Service Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quality service for students has been identified as an important theme of higher education. In pursuing the aim of service quality, educational providers have long recognized that perceptions of service transcend the area of quality teaching and encompass the students' overall experience within the university. This article investigates the types of services that would be most beneficial to students, from the perspective of both current students and recent alumni. A cross-sectional survey of all students was conducted using an online survey. A separate survey was also conducted of alumni from the last five graduating classes. From these surveys, 94.0% of student respondents and 91.9% of alumni respondents strongly agreed with the statement "It is important for the OSU CVM (Ohio State University College of Veterinary Medicine) to provide on-site comprehensive student services." Both groups ranked job postings for post-graduation employment, fourth-year off-site rotation opportunities, and financial planning/budgeting among their top ranked preferred services. In addition, requests for continued or enhanced interviewing/communication skills training; individual mental, emotional, and spiritual counseling; and individual and group tutoring were predominant themes identified from the qualitative data as well as the Likert-scale questions. The findings from the study sheds light on the need for comprehensive services for veterinary students beyond those services traditionally provided in an academic setting, such as tutoring and course advising.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".