MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2565454003 · doi:10.3138/jvme.1215-202r1

The Challenges and Issues of Undergraduate Student Retention and Attainment in UK Veterinary Medical Education

2016· article· en· W2565454003 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elizabeth Jackson, Elizabeth Armitage‐Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Medical Education · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicVeterinary Practice and Education Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumMedical educationEducational attainmentVeterinary medicineEthnic groupDominance (genetics)MedicinePsychologySociologyPolitical sciencePedagogyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Student retention and attainment has recently been identified as a key area for development in veterinary medical education enquiry. Woodfield's research on retention and attainment across the UK disciplines has yielded some unique information about the challenges and issues of students who study veterinary medicine and related subjects. The present literature review aims to expand on Woodfield's findings and explain important issues about retention and attainment across veterinary medicine. Overall, the subject of retention and attainment in undergraduate veterinary medical education needs a great deal more empirical attention, such as data on the retention and attainment of mature and widening access students, and the effects of students being placed at remote locations during their studies. Our findings also cover some unsurprising issues: the dominance of women in a profession that is principally lead by men, the underrepresentation of black and minority ethnic (BME) students in veterinary medicine, and the effects of content overload in the veterinary medical curriculum. Based on data gathered by Woodfield and our investigation of the scholarly and gray literatures, we offer an overview of gaps in current knowledge and recommendations for further research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.330
GPT teacher head0.551
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Medical EducationSame topicVeterinary Practice and Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207