MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2737275052

Comparison of an online learning module to hands-on training in teaching a cautery disbudding technique for dairy calves including cornual nerve block application.

2017· article· en· W2737275052 on OpenAlexaffabout
Charlotte B. Winder, S.J. LeBlanc, Derek B. Haley, K. Lissemore, Michael A. Godkin, T.F. Duffield

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicVeterinary Practice and Education Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlock (permutation group theory)Psychological interventionNursingMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Disbudding and dehorning are common procedures on dairy farms. In a recent survey of Ontario dairy producers, 38% reported not using local anesthetic for these procedures. Use of pain control is important for both calf welfare and industry sustainability. Use of local anesthetic requires technical training, typically provided by a veterinarian, although online training videos also exist. Neither method has been studied for efficacy. Our objective was to compare an online module to hands-on training in teaching naïve participants (veterinary students) to effectively carry out a cornual nerve block and disbud a dairy calf. Participants were assigned to either an online or hands-on training group. Although no statistical differences were seen in success of the nerve block, online learners were less confident and had poorer technical skills. While online learning was surprisingly effective for a psycho-motor skill, best practices should include hands-on training.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.502
GPT teacher head0.543
Teacher spread0.041 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicVeterinary Practice and Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207