Veterinary Students' Recollection Methods for Surgical Procedures: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When veterinary students face their first live animal surgeries, their level of anxiety is generally high and this can affect their ability to recall the procedure they are about to undertake. Multimodal teaching methods have previously been shown to enhance learning and facilitate recall; however, student preferences for recollection methods when translating theory into practice have not been documented. The aim of this study was to investigate veterinary students' experience with recollection of a surgical procedure they were about to perform after using multiple methods for preparation. From a group of 171 veterinary students enrolled in a basic surgery course, 26 students were randomly selected to participate in semi-structured interviews. Results showed that 58% of the students used a visual, dynamic method of recollection, mentally visualizing the video they had watched as part of their multimodal preparation. A mental recipe was used by 15%, whereas 12% mentally visualized their own notes. The study provides new information regarding veterinary students' methods of recollection of surgical procedures and indicates that in Danish veterinary students, a visual dynamic method is the most commonly used. This is relevant information in the current educational situation, which uses an array of educational tools, and it stresses the importance of supporting the traditional surgical teaching methods with high-quality instructional videos.
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 | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".