Impact of Team Communication Training on Performance and Self-Assessment of Team Functioning during Sophomore Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collaboration and teamwork are important skills for veterinary professionals that affect relationship development, health and well-being, financial success, and clinical outcomes. This study explores the impact of team communication training on performance and assessment of team functioning during second-year surgery by comparing two different classes. The class of 2017 (control group) received no formal training in team communication before their participation in surgery, and the class of 2018 (treatment group) participated in training offered through a dedicated team communication course. Results showed that team training increased surgical preparation times and had a positive impact on perceptions of competence in some teamwork behaviors. Both cohorts identified similar challenges and solutions associated with teamwork, although the team-trained students responded to challenges differently than the control group. Team communication training had a positive impact on students' ability to plan and organize their experiences, navigate team dynamics in the moment, and respond to stress in a positive manner. These findings suggest that team training does, in fact, make a difference in students' abilities to navigate a team task productively.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".