Longitudinal study of veterinarians from entry to the veterinary course to 10 years after graduation: attitudes to work, career and profession
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the attitudes of veterinarians to their work, career and profession during the 10 years after graduation. DESIGN: Longitudinal study of students who started their course at The University of Queensland in 1985 and 1986, and who completed questionnaires in their first and fifth year as students, and after one, five and 10 years as veterinarians. METHODS: Data from 129 (96%) questionnaires completed after 10 years as a veterinarian were coded numerically then analysed, together with data from previous questionnaires, with SAS System 7 for Windows 95. RESULTS: After 10 years, almost all respondents were either very glad they had done the veterinary course (57%) or generally glad, though with some misgivings (37%). Despite this, only 55% would definitely become a veterinarian if they 'had to do it over again'. The responses for about one-third were different from those given five years earlier. The views of many were related to the level of support and encouragement received in their first job after graduation. There were 42% who were working less than half-time as veterinarians, and their main reasons were, in order, raising children, long hours of work, attitudes of bosses and clients, and poor pay. A majority was concerned about the ethics and competence of some colleagues, and almost all believed that consideration of costs must influence the type of treatment animals receive. CONCLUSIONS: Most veterinarians were glad to have done the veterinary course, but for about one-quarter their career had not lived up to expectations and almost half would not do it again in another incarnation. Stress, hours of work, difficulties in balancing personal life with career and low income were important concerns for many. Low income may contribute to the low number of males entering the veterinary profession.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".