Stress in Veterinary Science Students: A Study at the University of Queensland
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
This paper reports on the results of a survey of selected University of Queensland (UQ) veterinary students aimed at elucidating factors causing stress during the five undergraduate years of the program. Students from each of the five years were asked to form six- or seven-member focus groups. Each focus group was then interviewed and their opinions sought on causes of ongoing stress and the ranking of those causes into predetermined categories. They were also asked to give their opinions on counseling services available within the university and what, if any, services they would like to see in place to help students with stress-related problems. Students in the first, third, and fourth years of the program rated academic issues as the most likely causes of ongoing stress, while students in the second and fifth years of the program ranked lifestyle and financial issues as more likely to cause ongoing stress. In most cases, students coped well with these causes of stress and tended not to use counseling services available to all UQ students. When faced with stressful issues, students looked to their classmates or family members for help and not to university counseling services. Students were also happy to approach staff members in the Veterinary School when faced with a problem. The authors nevertheless conclude that mechanisms set in place at the undergraduate level to help veterinary students cope with stress should particularly benefit those students when they become new graduates and are faced with the stresses of veterinary practice.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 it