The Influence of Workplace Learning on Attitudes toward Animal Welfare in Veterinary Students
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
Several studies suggest that veterinary students' empathy for animals declines during the years spent at university, yet the factors responsible for this change are not well understood. This study focused on the influence of workplace learning (WPL) on veterinary students' empathy for animals. WPL comprises off-campus placements and is common to all veterinary degree programs. A survey of 150 veterinary students at Charles Sturt University was conducted using an established animal-empathy scale. In general, our findings supported previous studies that empathy for animals declines between the first and fifth year and is lower in male students than in female students. Our findings indicated that specific factors relating to WPL such as pre-clinical extramural studies and clinical placements significantly influenced the students' beliefs on animal welfare. The findings presented here suggest that closer examination of the impact of WPL within the veterinary curricula is important to understanding students' changes in empathy for animals and the development of ethical principles in veterinary education.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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