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
The medical profession has spent much time and many resources engaging in a discourse of medical professionalism and debating the appropriate attitudes and behavior of physicians, but little has been published concerning the concept of veterinary professionalism. Physicians are commonly examined by social scientists and educationalists to establish definitions of medical professionalism in order to teach and assess these values within curricula. This challenging process has not been without criticism, however, with some calling the numerous definitions unhelpful, especially when these behaviors are not demonstrated in practice or the wider sociological implications of medical professionalism are ignored. Veterinary curricula often include professional skills, and there has been some discussion about their inclusion as well as the scope of veterinary surgeons and their role in society. Despite this, no true definition of veterinary professionalism exists, and the teaching of the values and behaviors expected of veterinary professionals may not be explicit. Regardless of the difficulties of engaging in such a discourse, perhaps it is time that this occurred and a realistic and usable definition of veterinary professionalism is established. This is a period of change for the veterinary profession, and a teachable and assessable definition can provide some clarity and assist educators within ever evolving veterinary curricula.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.006 |
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