MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1882026888

PAWSing Student Stress: A Pilot Evaluation Study of the St. John Ambulance Therapy Dog Program on Three University Campuses in Canada

2015· article· en· W1882026888 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Colleen Anne Dell, Darlene Chalmers, James Gillett, Betty Rohr, Chelsea Nickel, Lori Campbell, Rita Hanoski, Josh Haguerud, Alicia Husband, Coby Stephenson, Madison Brydges

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingMental healthPsychological interventionPsychologyReciprocalMedical educationMedicineClinical psychologyPsychotherapistPsychiatrySocial psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Student mental health is a concern on university campuses, and animal-assisted interventions are one response. This article presents the immediate and three-month follow-up outcomes of a pilot evaluation study of the St. John Ambulance Therapy Dog program at three Canadian universities. Analyzing a sample of 403 students and 16 handlers/observers at the events and 87 students at follow-up, we found that the therapy dogs offer love and support. Love is understood as having reciprocal love for the dogs and gaining positive feelings from visiting with them. Support is understood as destressing and relaxing by interacting with the dogs. Implications for mental health supports for university students are suggested.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score0.783

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Counselling and PsychotherapySame topicHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesFrench-language works237,207