Exploring the Link between Mindset and Psychological Well-Being among Veterinary Students
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study set out to improve our understanding of potential pedagogical factors that may influence the mental health of veterinary students. Previous research has demonstrated that the type of feedback given to children by parents and teachers can strongly influence young people's beliefs in their ability to modify their intelligence-their "mindset." There is also evidence that we can change the mindset of students relating to their intelligence by changing the methods by which we teach and assess. We used a paper-based questionnaire to assess mindset and psychological well-being in veterinary students (n=148). We found an association linking students' mindset to their intelligence and their psychological well-being. Students who believed that their level of intelligence was fixed had significantly lower scores on five out of six areas of psychological well-being compared to students who believed that their intelligence was malleable. Giving process rather than person feedback and reducing assessment methods that encourage comparison with other students could increase the proportion of our students with a growth mindset and, if the association we identified is causal, improve their psychological well-being.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it