Development, Evaluation, and Evolution of a Peer Support Program in Veterinary Medical Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The majority of peer support programs in UK universities focus on academic support (e.g., through peer-assisted learning programs). Following student consultation, a pilot pastoral-based student peer support program was developed and implemented in a UK veterinary school. Thirty-one students were trained in the pilot year, and continued with the program to the end of the academic year (and beyond). The trainees were asked for feedback at the end of training and at the end of the year; the rest of the student body was surveyed as to their perception of the peer support program at the end of the year. Feedback from the training (N=19) was positive, with themes of enhanced self-development, improved communication skills, and bonding with other trainees. The wider student body responded (N=497) with concerns over confidentiality within a small community and distrust due to the competitive environment. Despite this, however, most students (74%) agreed that having peer support available created a supportive atmosphere, even if they did not personally plan on using the program. The paper concludes with a description of the changes being made to the program as a result of the evaluation.
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".