Veterinarians’ Self-Reported Needs and Attitudes on the Atlantic Canada Veterinary College and Associated Teaching Hospital in Relation to Continuing Education, Research, and Clinical Referrals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between veterinary colleges (VCs), associated veterinary teaching hospital referral centers (VTHs), and referring veterinarians (rVets) is important and complex. Despite this, there has been minimal research on rVets with respect to their regional VC and VTH. Our objectives were to evaluate rVets’ attitudes and self-reported needs on their regional VC’s VTH surrounding (a) continuing education, (b) collaborative research, and (c) referrals for specialty consultation and care. Participants (rVets) were invited to complete an online questionnaire (2018–2019). Respondents ( n = 56) indicated multiple (24) unmet continuing education topic needs, of which dermatology and behavior were most selected. Many rVets (70%) reported an interest in collaborative research participation. Communication was frequently selected by respondents when asked what could be improved with respect to the VTH referral center process. Our work provides a benchmark attitudes and needs assessment, identifies areas for improvement, and may aid initiatives regionally, and likely externally, as adapted to other rVet–VC–VTH relationships.
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 | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".