Evaluation of the Attitudes and Confidence of Veterinary Undergraduates toward Working with Cats in the Veterinary Hospital Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An understanding of feline behavior is required to successfully handle cats in the hospital environment and avoid triggering escalation to fear-aggression due to heightened anxiety. Some veterinary students appear to misinterpret feline behavioral cues, resulting in frustration and poor success when performing basic handling. This article investigates the following in regard to veterinary students and feline handling: (a) attitudes toward working with feline patients in the hospital environment; (b) experience of working with feline patients; (c) satisfaction in acquisition of feline handling and examination skills; and, (d) confidence in feline handling skills; and to explore influencing factors. An electronic questionnaire was circulated to fourth and final year veterinary students (May 2012) and final year students (June 2013) for anonymous voluntary completion. One hundred and seventy-three of 293 students completed the questionnaire. Of final year respondents, 87/115 (75.7%) indicated that they enjoy interacting with cats in veterinary hospitals; 95/115 (82.6%) indicated that they were satisfied with their cat handling skills; 105/115 (91.3%) felt confident handling quiet and wriggly cats; significantly fewer 63/115 (54.8%) felt confident handling unpredictable cats ( p < .05). Factors significantly affecting confidence in handling unpredictable cats included: frequency of examination practice during extra-mural studies ( p < .05), enjoyment of interacting with cats in veterinary hospitals ( p < .05), self-perceived understanding of feline behavior ( p < .05), self-perceived ability to interpret cats’ behavioral expressions ( p < .05), satisfaction with cat handling skills ( p < .05), and perception of feline versus canine handling ability ( p < .05).
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".