Workplace Learning in Veterinary Education: A Sociocultural Perspective
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
Veterinary practice is a broad sphere of professional activity encompassing clinical activity and other vocational opportunities conducted in rapidly changing contemporary social conditions. Workplace learning is an important but resource-intensive component of educating students for practice. This conceptual article argues that literature on workplace learning in the veterinary context is dominated by descriptive accounts and that there is a dearth of theoretically informed research on this topic. Framing veterinary practice as a social, relational, and discursive practice supports the use of workplace learning theories developed from a sociocultural perspective. Situated learning theory, with its associated concepts of communities of practice and legitimate peripheral participation, and workplace learning theory focused on workplace affordances and learner agency are discussed. Two composite examples of student feedback from veterinary clinical learning illustrate the concepts, drawing out such themes as the roles of teachers and learners and the assessment of integrated practice. The theoretical perspective described in this article can be used to inform development of models of workplace learning in veterinary clinical settings; relevant examples from medical education are presented.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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