Assessing Backyard Poultry versus Small Animal Knowledge of Veterinary Students regarding Husbandry, Prescription Drug Use, and Antimicrobial Resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As backyard poultry (BYP) ownership has increased in the US, the demand for veterinarians who treat BYP has also increased. However, veterinarians who treat BYP remain scarce and are mostly small animal veterinarians and exotic animal practitioners who have limited training in food animal regulatory practices. To gauge whether veterinary students are interested in learning more about BYP and what BYP topics to include in an online training program for veterinary students, a BYP knowledge assessment was conducted. Pre-clinical veterinary students were asked to self-rate their level of knowledge on various topics for both small animal practice and BYP using Likert-type ordinal scales. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests of those Likert data showed significant differences ( p < .01 at α = .05) between self-assessed knowledge of poultry and small animal medicine for all surveyed topics. Specifically, veterinary students ranked themselves as less knowledgeable on poultry concepts than on small animal medicine concepts. Nevertheless, students expressed interest in an online training program for treating BYP and drug residue avoidance in BYP, despite having chosen future career tracks that are not exclusively poultry. Specific topics students expressed interest in with respect to BYP training included anatomy, husbandry, prescribing medications, treatment options, food safety, antimicrobial resistance, and extra-label drug use.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".