MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006951712 · doi:10.3138/jvme.2018-0016

Development and Validation of a Bovine Castration Model and Rubric

2021· article· en· W3006951712 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stacy Anderson, Lynda M. J. Miller, Philippa Gibbons, Julie Hunt, Jerry R. Roberson, Jeffrey A. Raines, Gil Patterson, John J. Dascanio

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Medical Education · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicVeterinary Practice and Education Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRubricCastrationMedicineCompetence (human resources)PsychologyInternal medicinePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Veterinary students require deliberate practice to reach competence in surgical bovine castration, but animal availability limits opportunities for practice. We sought to create and validate a surgical bovine castration model consisting of a molded silicone scrotum and testicles to allow students to practice this skill without the use of live animals. We sought to validate the model and associated scoring rubric for use in a veterinary clinical skills course. A convenience sample of third-year veterinary students ( n = 19) who had never castrated a bovine were randomized into two groups. The traditionally trained (T) group performed castration on a live bull calf after a 50-minute instructional lecture. The model-trained (M) group received the same lecture and a 2-hour clinical skills session practicing bovine castration using the model. All students were subsequently digitally recorded while castrating a live bull calf. Performance recordings were scored by an investigator blinded to group. Survey data were collected from the students and from expert veterinarians testing the model ( n = 8). Feedback from both groups was positive. The M group had higher performance scores than the T group (M group, M = 80.6; T group, M = 68.2; p = .005). Reliability of rubric scores was adequate at .74. No difference was found in surgical time (M group, M = 4.5 min; T group, M = 5.5 min; p = .12). Survey feedback indicated that experts and students considered the model useful. Model training improved students’ performance scores and provided evidence for validation of the model and rubric.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.614
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.425
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.111 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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