Employer and new graduate satisfaction with new graduate performance in the workplace within the first year following convocation from the Ontario Veterinary College.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mailed questionnaires administered to employers of graduates and to graduates of the Ontario Veterinary College in 2000 and 2001, 7 to 10 months after convocation, surveyed new graduate performance in the workplace. Proficiency at 9 species-specific (in 4 practice contexts) and 7 nonspecies-specific clinical activities were rated as "high," "some," or "low." Fifteen nonvocation-specific attributes, reflecting interpersonal, communication, and business skills, and the new graduate's competence to do his/her job were rated as "very good," "good," or "poor." Ninety or more percent of employers reported "high" to "some" proficiency in 8/9, 5/9, 3/9, and 1/9 activities relative to small animal, food animal, equine, and exotic animal practice, respectively, and in 5/7 nonspecies-specific clinical activities. Ninety or more percent of employers assessed workplace proficiency as "very good" to "good" in 13/15 nonvocation-specific work skills and overall competence to do the job for which the new graduate had been hired.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".