Pilot Study of Small Animal Rotating Intern Telephone Communication Training Using Simulated Referring Veterinarians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proficiency in client communications is now widely accepted as a significant requirement of veterinary student education, with numerous training systems in use and documentation of outcomes required for academic accreditation. Little information is available concerning communication training for veterinary house officers (interns and residents), despite the large number of new graduates who enter such programs seeking further training and mentorship. The majority of student communication training focuses on face-to-face interactions with clients and development of core communication skills. By contrast, veterinary house officers in specialty hospitals frequently communicate about cases with practitioner colleagues by telephone, to assess emergent and urgent referrals and follow up on shared cases. Successful telephone communication with these colleagues is a valuable skill to cultivate in novice interns. In this pilot study, self-reported veterinary intern confidence with communication skills improved after a telephone-based simulated referring veterinarian (RDVM) communications training experience. The use of simulated RDVMs, and telephone-based training, shows promise for incorporation into future training experiences of veterinarians at this level.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".