Professional Skills Teaching within Veterinary Education and Possible Future Directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Once ignored for their potential to take up precious time within the veterinary curriculum at the expense of hard science and technical competencies, professional skills such as ethical conduct, professional conduct, and communication skills are now considered essential in the creation of successful and employable graduates. Despite the requirement to include professional skills in veterinary curricula, limited communication among colleges and inconsistent documentation of curricular developments have led to a wide range of teaching and assessment methods with no consistent standards existing among colleges. Integration of professional competency teaching into the general curriculum is lauded widely, but barriers such as faculty buy-in have kept many colleges from moving toward a standard in which professional competencies are integrated into the general curriculum. The aim of this article is to provide veterinary educators and curriculum designers with an understanding of the rationale for including professional skills teaching within the curriculum while also presenting currently used, as well as recommended, strategies for effective instruction of professional skills.
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 | 0.021 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
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".