Motivation of Veterinary Public Health Faculties Across Veterinary Schools of the British Isles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Veterinary public health (VPH) is a critical role of veterinarians regardless of their chosen career pathway, and it is the role of VPH academics to inspire veterinary students within this essential topic. However, the alarming shortage of veterinarians has led to a significant reduction in veterinary policy makers and epidemiologists. The engagement of new graduates in public health roles is heavily influenced by their undergraduate teaching and extramural study opportunities. Worryingly, student engagement within VPH has been well documented to be poor in comparison to other subjects. As such, this study was designed to investigate what factors impacted VPH educators’ motivation. To do this, a mixed-methods survey was created and released electronically to 34 VPH academics across the UK and the Republic of Ireland. A total of 23 respondents, from nine veterinary schools spanning both countries, completed the survey. Data analysis involving both quantitative assessment and thematic analysis was undertaken. The results showed that VPH educators’ intrinsic motivation was not problematic and most ( n = 20) respondents felt motivated within their roles. However, all respondents had extrinsic issues that impacted their motivation, such as external stakeholders, curricula requirements, lack of student opportunity both regarding placement and as career options, as well as wider university issues. These themes led staff to feel undervalued in their roles, and as such highlight the areas that universities and external stakeholders need to act on to help fill the significant recruitment issues in this essential field. This study is, as far as the authors are aware, the first time globally that a VPH faculty have been asked to explore their motivation behind their teaching practices.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".