The Possible Role of Companion-Animal Anthropomorphism and Social Support in the Physical and Psychological Health of Dog Guardians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract While previous research suggests that individuals who humanize their companion animals may have insufficient human social support (Epley, Waytz, & Cacioppo, 2007), researchers have not examined the relation between companion-animal anthropomorphism and the health of animal guardians while taking into consideration their human social support levels. It was hypothesized that dog guardians with low levels of human social support would have poorer health if they engaged in high rather than low levels of anthropomorphism, while the health of dog guardians with high levels of human social support would not vary depending on their anthropomorphism levels. A sample of 203 Canadian dog guardians completed an online survey. Results revealed that, among dog guardians with low levels of human social support, those who engaged in high levels of anthropomorphism were more depressed, visited the doctor more often, and took more medications. Furthermore, among dog guardians with high levels of human social support, those who engaged in high levels of anthropomorphism were more stressed and depressed. These findings highlight the complexity of the relationship between anthropomorphic behavior, human social support, and dog guardians’ health.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".