Session G: Animals and Social Work: Examining barriers to inclusion of knowledge of Human Animal Relations in social work practice in Ontario and thinking about trans-species social justice.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Animals are increasingly being recognized as important family members and attachment figures in the lives of humans. Currently, over half of Canadian households include companion animals, making it very likely that social workers already work with individuals who have valued relationships with animals and consider them trans-species family members. Additional evidence of health benefits of animal-human interactions and relationships throughout the life-course warrants further consideration and more in-depth understanding of what social work practitioners know and do in relation to animal-human connections.\nHowever, studies conducted in the United States (Risley-Curtiss, 2010) and recent surveys in Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta (Chalmers et al., 2015; Hanrahan, 2013) found significant gaps between social work practice and education around utilizing knowledge related to Human-Animal Bond/ Human-Animal Relations/Human-Animal Interactions. This paper reports on an online study conducted in Ontario, building on the above mentioned Canadian and US surveys, to explore what social workers in Ontario know and are doing around inclusion of animal-human relationships in their practice. A unique feature of the Ontario survey is its inclusion of a Critical Animal Studies perspective.\nTwo hundred and twenty-four registered social workers (RSWs) in Ontario who are currently employed in social work and related fields responded. Analysis of the survey data is underway. Preliminary results indicate that most social workers currently are not including animals or knowledge of Human Animal Relations in their practice or are unsure how to do so, as previous surveys found. Lack of understanding of how to include Human-Animal relations in practice has serious implications for social work. Importantly, lack of general awareness also suggests lower awareness of intersectional oppression of animals and humans and failure to address trans-species social justice (justice beyond humans). Preliminary results also indicate two thirds of the respondents have considered including animals in their practice but currently do not, due to various barriers and concerns such as workplace policies relating to risk to humans. The presentation will focus specifically on social workers’ qualitative responses provided and examine barriers to inclusion of knowledge of Human Animal Relations in their practice, using a Critical Animal Studies perspective to explore possibilities of moving toward trans-species social justice. The paper aims to contribute to better understanding of challenges social workers face in incorporating knowledge of Human Animal Relations in social work practice and policy development.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,017 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,025 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».