Internationalizing Veterinary Education in the 21<sup>st</sup> Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results of a survey conducted in the spring of 2001 to assess international activities at colleges of veterinary medicine in North America. A questionnaire was sent to all 31 colleges of veterinary medicine in the United States and Canada, of which 22 responded. Of those schools responding to the survey, 86% have International Veterinary Medicine (IVM) programs and most have faculty involved in internationally oriented research (95%), in teaching IVM (74%), in mentoring veterinary students in IVM (84%), and in international consultancies (84%). Funding sources for faculty international activities include foundations, intramural funds, curriculum development grants, endowment/development funds, and sabbaticals. Foreign animal diseases are the most commonly taught international topic. The increasing importance of international veterinary issues is leading to the internationalization of the veterinary education in North America. Most IVM programs include activities of both faculty and students. Greater collaboration between faculty and programs across schools would allow schools to benefit from each other's strengths in IVM education.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".