Pratique vétérinaire en situation interculturelle : fiches pratiques à l'attention des vétérinaires français ayant une clientèle canadienne ou souhaitant aller travailler au Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
World evolution led veterinarians to meet more foreign people during their work. This thesis focuses on meeting Canadian-born clients. lt aims to highlight intercultural communication obstacles for French vets meeting Canadian-born clients, in France or Canada, as expatriates. A bibliographic study about intercultural communication barriers and the cultural framework, followed by analysis of surveys for Canadians pet owners in France, vets working in France and meeting Canadian-born clients, and vets working in Canada, helped to develop guidance for vets who face communication with Canadian-born clients. This bibliographic study shows that an open-minded and relaxed attitude, allowing to avoid barriers due to negative emotions and communication process, and the knowledge of the cultural framework, makes intercultural communication easier. The main idea of the surveys is importance of openness and sympathy, however their main limitation is the low number of responses, due to the low frequency of exchanges between French vets and Canadian clients, in Canada as well as in France.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".