Improving Dairy Organizational Communication from the Veterinarian's Perspective: Results of a Continuing Veterinary Medical Education Pilot Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing size and complexity of US dairy farms could make it more difficult for a veterinary practitioner to effectively communicate protocol recommendations for prevention or treatment on the farm. A continuing education workshop was set up based on the results of research on dairy organizational communication on dairy farms, which resulted in a tool to assess dairy communication structure and flow. The workshop specifically focused on communication structure and whom to talk to when implementing health care changes in calf rearing. In addition, modern methods of veterinary-client communication knowledge and skills were provided. Primary outcomes of the workshops were to obtain feedback from participants about research findings and the communication model, to improve awareness about the complexity of communication structures on dairy farms, and to change participants' knowledge and skills associated with on-farm communication by providing communication theory and skills and an approach to evaluate and improve dairy organizational communication. Of the 37 participants completing the pre-program assessment, most recognized a need for themselves or their practice to improve communication with clients and farm employees. After the program, most participants were confident in their new communication skills and would consider using them. They highlighted specific new ideas they could apply in practice, such as conducting a "communication audit." The results from the assessment of this communication workshop, focused on dairy veterinarians, highlighted the need for communication training in this sector of the profession and practitioners' desire to engage in this type of training.
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 | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".