Survey of 252 Veterinary Students to Assess How Undertaking a Research Project Affects Attitudes toward Research in Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Veterinary students at the University of Nottingham must conduct a research project for their third-year dissertation. The aim of this mixed methods study was to assess how undertaking this research project affects veterinary students’ perceptions of research in veterinary practice, and whether their experiences with the projects influences their willingness to participate in future research. Of the 252 veterinary students who completed the survey, the majority (81%) enjoyed their project. Significantly more students enjoyed small animal clinical research projects than lab-based projects ( p = .04). Eighty-nine percent of respondents indicated that they would like to be involved in research post-graduation. The majority of students (88%) indicated they would be willing to be involved with sample collection as part of their contribution to future research. The most prevalent emergent theme when asked about perceived barriers to being involved in research after graduation was time constraints. While no significant associations were found between enjoyment of project and willingness to be involved in future research, respondents who did not wish to be involved in future research cited bad experiences and a lack of interest as the main reasons. Many veterinarians in practice are not involved in research; therefore, vast quantities of valuable data go unexamined. This survey showed that there is notable interest in being involved in future research among this cohort of respondents. This study concludes that veterinary educational organizations can improve participation in future practice-based research by ensuring positive experiences with research and by addressing perceived barriers to research that may develop during undergraduate years.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".