A Mixed-Methods Survey of Veterinary Ethics Teaching in Turkey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the growth of interest in veterinary ethics, the teaching of ethics to veterinary students has become more important. This study collects comprehensive data about ethics education at veterinary faculties in Turkey to contribute to the international literature. A cross-sectional descriptive survey design is used to collect data via questionnaire. Of the 31 faculty members actively teaching ethics at 24 of the 29 veterinary faculties in Turkey (as of the end of 2021), 30 responded to the survey. By the end of 2021, ethics courses in 24 veterinary faculties in Turkey were conducted between the seventh and tenth semesters with similar content across the examined institutions. Of the 31 faculty members responsible for ethics education, 22 were ethicists. Theoretical lectures and multiple-choice tests were the most preferred methods for teaching and assessment. The most preferred learning outcome to be gained by students was ethical awareness. Integrity by ethicists and morality by faculty members from other departments were considered the most important virtues. The collected qualitative data regarding the strengths of ethics education and areas for improvement were varied and controversial. Ethics training should be an ongoing process throughout veterinary education. Applied ethics education should be comprehensively included in the curricula and carried out with the cooperation of faculty members working in clinical fields.
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 | 0.027 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 |
| 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".