MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915931753 · doi:10.3138/jvme.1017-143r1

Evaluation of a First-Year Veterinary Surgical Skills Laboratory: A Retrospective Review

2019· review· en· W2915931753 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kevin Cosford, Carolyn Hoessler, Cindy L. Shmon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Medical Education · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicVeterinary Practice and Education Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCentre for Teaching and Learning, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
KeywordsRetrospective cohort studyMedicineVeterinary medicineForcepsCompetency assessmentPsychologyMedical educationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A retrospective review of the first-year surgical skills competency-based assessment was performed at the Western College of Veterinary Medicine (WCVM) using 6 years of data from 475 students. The cumulative pass rate was 88.2% on first attempt and 99.2% upon remediation. Student gender did not influence overall pass/fail rates, with a failure rate of 11.1% for female students and 10.5% for male students ( p = 0.88). Significantly decreased pass rates were associated with identification of the Mayo scissors (p = 0.03), explanation of using Allis tissue forceps ( p = 0.002), and performance of a Lembert suture pattern ( p < 0.01). An increased pass rate was observed for the cruciate pattern ( p < 0.01). No differences were found in pass/fail rates for hand ties ( p = 0.80) or instrument ties ( p = 0.60). The most common errors occurred with half hitch ties: hand ties (53%) and instrument ties (38%). The most common errors were also recognized for instrument handling (31%) and needle management (20%) during the suture pattern section. The veterinary medical education community may benefit from the evidence-based findings of this research, in terms of understanding student performance across competencies, identifying areas requiring additional mentoring, and determining appropriate competencies for first-year veterinary students.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.520
GPT teacher head0.619
Teacher spread0.099 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Medical EducationSame topicVeterinary Practice and Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207