The Rapid and International Expansion of Veterinary Clinical Skills Laboratories: A Survey to Establish Recent Developments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Veterinary clinical skills laboratories are used for teaching a wide range of practical, clinical, and surgical skills on models and simulators. A survey conducted in 2015 identified the role of such facilities in veterinary education in North America and Europe. The current study aimed to capture recent changes using a similar survey with three sections to collect data about the structure of the facility, its uses in teaching and assessment, and the staffing. The survey consisted of multiple choice and free text questions, was administered online using Qualtrics and was disseminated in 2021 via clinical skills networks and Associate Deans. Responses were received from 91 veterinary colleges in 34 countries; 68 had an existing clinical skills laboratory and 23 were planning to open one within 1-2 years. Collated information from the quantitative data described the facility, teaching, assessment, and staffing. Major themes emerged from the qualitative data relating to aspects of the layout, location, integration in the curriculum, contributions to student learning, and the team managing and supporting the facility. Challenges were associated with budgeting, the ongoing need for expansion and leadership of the program. In summary, veterinary clinical skills laboratories are increasingly common around the world and the contributions to student learning and animal welfare were well recognized. The information about existing and planned laboratories and the tips from those managing the facilities provides valuable guidance for anyone intending to open or expand an existing clinical skills laboratory.
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 | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".