Development and Evaluation of an Experiential Career Planning Assignment to Train Students to Assess Organizational Fit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Determining if an employment opportunity will be a good match can feel daunting, especially for veterinary graduates entering the workforce. To ease this transition, veterinary educators traditionally have attempted to provide career support through interspersed didactic lectures on career options and the preparation of employment documents. While well intended, this approach fails to address the multiple dimensions of effective career planning or the reality that career planning is a lifelong endeavor. For a career-planning teaching modality to be effective, it must address all stages of career planning and provide a framework that can be adapted throughout a career. Here we describe how a four-stage career-planning model, utilized throughout higher education, was employed to create a career planning assignment for guiding students in assessing organizational fit. We describe how student feedback was used to inform revisions, resulting in an improved educational experience as measured by students' perceptions of the utility of the assignment. Additional recommendations based on instructor reflection are provided to guide creation and implementation of future assignments. Given the growing support for professional skills training in veterinary medical education, we view incorporation of such learning activities as essential to preparing students to enter the modern veterinary workplace.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".