Faculty’s Perception of a Research Project Embedded in the Undergraduate Veterinary Curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we describe faculty’s perception of a research project embedded in the final year of the undergraduate veterinary curriculum and look at factors associated with overall perceptions of the project. We hypothesized that faculty would have a dichotomous attitude toward the research project, with faculty viewing it either positively or negatively, and that this opinion of the project would be largely influenced by the background of the faculty member—in particular, her or his role at the Royal Veterinary College. We explored this hypothesis via a questionnaire consisting of 26 questions in categorical format, Likert-scale format, and ranking format. The questions addressed faculty demographics, faculty’s perceptions of the project, and generic skills. Faculty had an overall positive view of the project and found it to be a useful part of the undergraduate curriculum (83.3% found it to be useful or very useful). Faculty’s perception of the project was influenced by their role at the college ( p = .017), the species with which they primarily work ( p = .05), and their opinion on the time spent supervising the final-year project ( p = .003). We concluded that faculty view research as an important and useful part of the undergraduate veterinary curriculum.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".