A Competency-Guided Veterinary Curriculum Review Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Competencies can guide outcomes assessment in veterinary medical education by providing a core set of specific abilities expected of new veterinary graduates. A competency-guided evaluation of Colorado State University's (CSU) equine veterinary curriculum was undertaken via an alumni survey. Published competencies for equine veterinary graduates were used to develop the survey, which was distributed to large animal alumni from CSU's Doctor of Veterinary Medicine program. The results of the survey indicated areas for improvement, specifically in equine business, surgery, dentistry, and radiology. The desire for more hands-on experiences in their training was repeatedly mentioned by alumni, with the largest discrepancies between didactic knowledge and hands-on skills in the areas of business and equine surgery. Alumni surveys allow graduates to voice their perceived levels of preparation by the veterinary program and should be used to inform curriculum revisions. It is proposed that the definition and utilization of competencies in each phase of a curricular review process (outcomes assessment, curriculum mapping, and curricular modifications), in addition to faculty experience and internal review, is warranted.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".