Use of Physical Self-Experience for Teaching Lameness Evaluation: Short-Term Effects on Lameness Evaluation of Horses with Mild Forelimb Lameness by Novice Veterinary Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lameness evaluation (LE) is an important veterinary skill, but it can be a challenging task to teach. Acoustic and visual input in conjunction with acting are the three major learning channels for acquiring new information. Acting (e.g., physical self-experience) has not been reported as a didactic tool for LE; therefore, we investigated two physical self-experience techniques, imitation of lameness during LE instruction and head nod during LE. Undergraduate veterinary students ( N = 78) who had not yet received any instructions for LE underwent standard instruction for LE, followed by instructions to head nod, instructions to imitate lameness, or neither. Students’ subjective LE skills were then tested against those of senior clinicians on two horses that were either sound or mildly forelimb lame. In more than 80%, there was agreement on the presence or absence of lameness independent of instruction, and we found no significant evaluation differences between didactic strategies. Specific instructions for head nodding did not significantly influence the quality of LE, possibly because head nodding was widespread even when no specific instructions had been given. Veterinary students who had been taught to imitate lameness without instructions to head nod were consistently closest to the assessment of the senior clinicians, and in walk these students were significantly better at LE than students additionally instructed to head nod. This finding indicates that imitation of lameness, but not necessarily head nodding, may be beneficial for understanding body movement such as mild equine forelimb lameness.
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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".