Evaluation of companion animal behavior knowledge among first-year veterinary students before and after an introductory animal behavior course
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To survey first-year veterinary students' knowledge of companion animal (dog, cat, and horse) behavior and popular-culture (ie, pop-culture) behavior myths related to animal body language, motivations, and learning prior to participation in an introductory animal behavior course; evaluate potential associations between sources of prior behavior knowledge and knowledge on the preclass survey; and determine whether postclass scores on the same survey were predictive of final examination score for the behavior class. SAMPLE: 156 first-year veterinary students. PROCEDURES: Students were invited to participate in an anonymous electronic survey before and after a semester-long, 2-credit introductory animal behavior course. Demographic features, self-assessed animal behavior knowledge, and sources of prior behavior knowledge were evaluated as predictors of preclass survey knowledge scores. Postclass survey knowledge scores were evaluated for association with final examination scores as a measure of validity. RESULTS: Preclass knowledge scores were low (mean ± SD, 49 ± 12.7%; n = 152). Reporting peer-reviewed journal articles as a source of incoming knowledge predicted 9% higher scores, whereas reporting magazines or online pop-culture articles as a source of incoming knowledge predicted 7.6% lower scores for preclass behavior knowledge, compared with scores for students not citing those respective sources. Companion animal ownership was not associated with preclass survey knowledge scores. Postclass knowledge scores were substantially improved (mean ± SD, 84.3 ± 8%) and predictive of final examination scores. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results indicated a profound deficit of behavior knowledge among veterinary students at the start of their curriculum. Students graduating from veterinary institutions without a comprehensive behavior course may be at a disadvantage for day 1 competency in addressing animal behavior problems.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".