Demographic survey of veterinarians employed in western Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to generate demographic data on veterinarians working in western Canada. A sample of 551 veterinarians was randomly selected from a population of 2474 veterinarians employed in western Canada, 425 (77.1%) of whom responded to the survey. The respondents were evenly split between males (53.1%) and females (46.9%). More than half (58.0%) of the private practitioners practised exclusively on companion animals (small animals and horses), while 2.9% devoted 100% of their time to food animals. There were 351 respondents who had had > or = 2 employers since graduation; 80% of those who had begun their careers in companion animal (CA) practice had remained in this type of practice, while 54.3% of those who had begun their careers in mixed animal practice had switched to CA practice. Analyses of wage and workload data from 85 full-time veterinary employees showed that CA practitioners worked the fewest hours/week (47.0), had the least number of evenings on-call/month (3.7), and earned the highest hourly wage (35.79 dollars) as compared with non-CA practitioners.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".