MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012697972

A survey of veterinarian mental health and resilience in Ontario, Canada.

2020· article· en· W3012697972 on OpenAlexaffabout
Colleen O. Best, Jennifer L. Perret, Joanne Hewson, Deep K. Khosa, Peter Conlon, Andria Jones‐Bitton

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicVeterinary Practice and Education Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthBurnoutCompassion fatigueMedicineAnxietyPsychological resiliencePsychologyPsychiatryClinical psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our goal was to help address a lack of mental health research on Canadian veterinarians through estimation of the prevalence of depression, anxiety, compassion fatigue, burnout, and resilience in veterinarians in Ontario. We conducted a cross-sectional study using an online survey that investigated demographics, mental health, self-reported overall health, and satisfaction with sources of support. Validated, psychometric scales were used to measure depression, anxiety, burnout, compassion fatigue, and resilience. The mental health indices of participating veterinarians were in line with those of veterinarians in other regions, and reflective of poorer mental health compared to the general population. The scores for females tended towards poorer mental health relative to males. Reported levels of burnout and secondary traumatic stress were of particular concern. These results can be used to support evidence-based interventions to help veterinarians and veterinary students build their resilience so that they may better thrive in the face of occupational stresses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.332
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.089 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations37
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicVeterinary Practice and Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207