Attributes of Clinical Role Models as Described by Senior Veterinary Students in Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Role models incite admiration and provide inspiration, contributing to learning as students aspire to emulate their example. The attributes of physician role models for medical trainees are well documented, but they remain largely unexplored in the context of veterinary medical training. The aim of the current study was to describe the attributes that final-year veterinary students (N=213) at the University of Queensland identified when reflecting on their clinical role models. Clinical role model descriptions provided by students were analyzed using concept-mapping software (Leximancer v. 2.25). The most frequent and highly connected concepts used by students when describing their role model(s) included clients, vet, and animal. Role models were described as good communicators who were skilled at managing relationships with clients, patients, and staff. They had exemplary knowledge, skills, and abilities, and they were methodical and conducted well-structured consultations. They were well respected and, in turn, demonstrated respect for clients, colleagues, staff, and students alike. They were also good teachers and able to tailor explanations to suit both clients and students. Findings from this study may serve to assist with faculty development and as a basis for further research in this area.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".