Relationship between Small Animal Intern Rank and Performance at a University Teaching Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a relationship between selection committee rankings of internship applicants and the performance of small animal interns. The hypothesis was that there would be a relationship between selection committee rank order and intern performance; the more highly an application was ranked, the better the intern's performance scores would be. In 2007, the Department of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery instituted a standardized approach to its intern selection process both to streamline the process and to track its effectiveness. At the end of intern years 2010-2014, every faculty member in the department was provided an intern assessment form for that year's class. There was no relationship between an individual intern's final rank by the selection committee and his/her performance either as a percentile score or a Likert-type score (p=.25, R2=0.04; p=0.31, R2=0.03, respectively). Likewise, when interns were divided into the top and bottom quartile based on their final rank by the selection committee, there was no relationship between their rank and their performance as a percentile score (median rank 15 vs. 20; p=.14) or Likert-type score (median rank 14 vs. 19; p=.27). Institutions that use a similar intern selection method may need to reconsider the time and effort being expended for an outcome that does not predict performance. Alternatively, specific criteria more predictive of performance outcomes should be identified and employed in the internship selection process.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".