Utility of an Equine Clinical Skills Course: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent publications have revealed inadequacies in the veterinary training of future equine practitioners. To help address this problem, a 2-week Equine Clinical Skills course was designed and implemented to provide fourth-year veterinary students with opportunities to have hands-on experience with common equine clinical skills using live animals and cadavers. Alumni and employers of alumni were surveyed to determine whether or not students participating in the course were more competent performing clinical skills during their first year post-graduation than those who had not participated in the course. Students who participated in the course were also surveyed before and after completing the course to determine whether or not their self-assessed skills improved during the course. Alumni who had taken the course rated their ability to perform the clinical skills more highly than alumni who had not taken the course. Similarly, students participating in the course indicated that they were significantly more able to perform the clinical skills after the course than when it began. Employers did not indicate a difference between the clinical skills of those who had taken the course and those who had not. Because this study involved a limited number of respondents from one institution, further studies should be conducted to replicate these findings and determine their generalizability.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".