Survey of College Climates at All 28 US Colleges and Schools of Veterinary Medicine: Preliminary Findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In April 2011, a nationwide survey of all 28 US veterinary schools was conducted to determine the comfort level (college climate) of veterinary medical students with people from whom they are different. The original hypothesis was that some historically underrepresented students, especially those who may exhibit differences from the predominant race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, experience a less welcoming college climate. Nearly half of all US students responded to the survey, allowing investigators to make conclusions from the resulting data at a 99% CI with an error rate of less than 2% using Fowler's sample-size formula. Valuable information was captured despite a few study limitations, such as occasional spurious data reporting and little ability to respond in an open-ended manner (most questions had a finite number of allowed responses). The data suggest that while overall the majority of the student population is comfortable in American colleges, some individuals who are underrepresented in veterinary medicine (URVM) may not feel the same level of acceptance or inclusivity on veterinary school campuses. Further examination of these data sets may explain some of the unacceptably lower retention rates of some of these URVM students on campuses.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".