Views on Reading and Research Habits of Veterinary Medicine Students in Turkey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reading and research habits, together with individual and social development, some of the most important criteria of a qualified life in our age, are among the characteristics university students are expected to have. As in every profession, veterinary professional development is possible with individual development by continuous studying and researching professional topics starting in students' graduate years. This research provides perspectives from the veterinary students of six faculties in Turkey on reading and research interests. The researchers developed a 39-item questionnaire-type instrument, which was given to 1,359 students studying at Ankara, Aydın, Burdur, Samsun, Erzurum, and Bursa in Turkey; data were analyzed using statistical tests. The number of books veterinary students read in a year did not exceed five by 34% of respondents. Only 22.3% read more than 11 books. Students were most likely to read novels (26.1%) and least likely to read religious books (0.5%). We also found that more than half the students were willing to join the scientific research community (56.3%) and become research assistants (57.8%). The researchers found a positive increase in students' views on reading and research interests as grade level increased, in favor of female and urban-based participants. In conclusion, the authors recommend that students be encouraged to do research, given assignments for researching various scientific topics, and provided environments to gain lifelong learning skills. Individuals who prefer reading and research will likely contribute to their personal and professional development and to their country in general.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".