Incorporation of Equine Learning Theory into the Undergraduate Curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Working as an equine veterinarian carries a high risk of occupational injury, with the behavior of the horse frequently reported as a cause for these injuries. Risk of injury is one reason cited by undergraduate veterinary students that would prevent them from entering large animal practice, and newly graduated veterinarians have been shown to be at increased risk of sustaining an occupational injury compared with more experienced colleagues. A cohort of pre-final-year undergraduate veterinary students were given a 45-minute lecture on learning theory and its application in equine practice, completing a questionnaire before ( pre) and after (immediately [ post] and several weeks [ delayed post]) to investigate whether receiving a single lecture alters undergraduate veterinary students’ perception of dealing with difficult horses in equine practice. The undergraduate veterinary students’ attitudes to the behavior scenarios altered from the pre-questionnaire to the post- and delayed post-questionnaires. They were less likely to choose more traditional methods of restraining or controlling the horse (such as a twitch) and more likely to choose an option based on learning theory after the lecture. They also reported that if they had to deal with one of these scenarios in practice following the lecture, they would feel more confident, more likely to succeed in completing the intervention, and less likely to be injured. This study suggests that an educational intervention can help change the attitudes and confidence of undergraduate students when working with difficult horses.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".