Study of the Levels of Human–Human and Human–Animal Empathy in Veterinary Medical Students from Chile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social relationships are based on our ability to put ourselves in the place of others, and from there to react appropriately and logically. This empathic ability can be extended to other species, based on the human ability to develop techniques to understand and communicate with animals. In education, the benefits of training professionals with ethical and empathic tools are known. Gender, diet, past experiences, and other factors can modify a person's levels of empathy toward humans and animals, and a relationship exists between both types of empathy. The aims of this study were to investigate some determinants of the level of empathy and to gain insight into the possible correlation between human-animal and human-human empathy. For this, the Animal Empathy Scale and the Interpersonal Reactivity Index by Davis were applied through an electronic survey system to freshmen and final-year students (n=452) from five schools of veterinary medicine in Chile. The correlation between the empathy scores of both instruments and their association with individual factors were studied using Spearman's correlation, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and the Kruskal-Wallis test. The results suggest that both instruments correlate significantly, and that gender, year of study, diet, and area of interest have a significant association with the score for empathy toward animals. This research shows that individual characteristics and changes that occur during veterinary training can affect students' attitudes toward animals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".