North American Veterinary Pathology Residency Training Programs: An Overview of Where they are Today and Where They Were Five Years Ago, with an Analysis of Trends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An e-mail/telephone survey of all active North American residency training programs in veterinary pathology was conducted in September 2005. The purpose of this survey was to determine current numbers of trainees, their program length and type, and salaries; to compare current numbers to five years earlier; and, finally, to gauge interest in expanding current programs. All 41 training institutions contacted responded to the survey. Briefly, the survey found that there are currently 235 veterinary pathology residents, for a mean of 5.7 residents per training program. The number of residents currently in training programs and the number of applicants for these programs has increased compared to five years earlier. There is widespread interest in further expanding capacity in these programs, and the coalition of the American College of Veterinary Pathologists and the Society of Toxicologic Pathology is a well-known source of possible funding for additional residents. This survey report further documents the numbers of combined residency/PhD programs, average starting salaries for new residents, outside sponsorship effects on pathology training programs, and some of the common concerns regarding veterinary pathology training programs voiced by the respondents. While residency training capacity has expanded in the last five years, and there is widespread desire to further expand these training programs, a shortage of veterinary pathologists for future market needs will need to be addressed by increased funding from as yet unspecified sources.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".