Recruitment and Hiring Strategies of Private Practitioners and Implications for Practice Management Training of Veterinary Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hiring new employees is one of the most important and difficult decisions all veterinary practice managers and owners face. In an effort to improve hiring decisions, many employers are choosing to screen potential employees more thoroughly through the use of interviews, background checks, personality assessments, and online research including social and professional networking websites. The current study reports results from an anonymous online survey created to evaluate practicing veterinarians' attitudes and practices related to the use of recruitment and hiring tools. Results suggest that, compared to those in other professions, veterinarians underutilize these evaluative tools. The profession could benefit from more opportunities for both practitioners and veterinary students to learn how to utilize a broader range of hiring and recruitment techniques. One area of particular and growing concern is the use of Internet social media for evaluation of potential employees. Despite the fairly low number of participants who indicated they currently research applicants online, a significant number plan to implement this practice in the future. Many students are unaware of how their online postings can affect their future job possibilities and career. It is therefore important to designate time within continuing education programs and professional veterinary curricula to educate these populations about hiring and recruitment tool options and about how to manage their personal Internet interactions (especially social media) to enhance and maintain their professional image (e-professionalism).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".