Curriculum Review and Revision at the University of Minnesota College of Veterinary Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Curriculum review is an essential part of ongoing curriculum development, and is a mandate of the American Veterinary Medical Association Council on Education (AVMA COE), the accrediting body of all North American schools and colleges of veterinary medicine. This article describes the steps in curriculum review undertaken by the University of Minnesota College of Veterinary Medicine (UMN CVM) in response to this mandate from the COE and to a recommendation from a recent collegiate review that was part of a larger university-level strategic planning effort. The challenges of reviewing and revising the curriculum within a short time frame were met by appointing a dedicated curriculum review board and by engaging students and faculty groups, both as focus groups and as specific faculty work sections within disciplines. Faculty voting on the process was very valuable as it permitted the curriculum review board and faculty groups to move ahead knowing there was a process in place for reassessment if most faculty did not agree with recommendations. Consistent support from the dean of the college and other administrators was vital in helping maintain momentum for curriculum review.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".