“They Gave Me a Reason to Live”: The Protective Effects of Companion Animals on the Suicidality of Abused Women
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have documented the frequent coexistence of companion animal abuse and forms of family violence. The frequent coexistence of these forms of victimization is illustrative of the interconnectedness of forms of oppression and provides evidence in support of the claim that true social justice requires ending all forms of oppression—including the oppression of other animals. This paper moves beyond documenting the degree of coexistence between these forms of victimization and interrogating why they coexist—both goals of my initial study (Fitzgerald 2005)—to more fully examine the roles of “pets” in the lives of abused women. Using data from the larger project wherein 26 abused women were interviewed, this paper examines how “pets” can moderate the abuse experienced by the human victims of family violence. Illustrative of this moderating role played by “pets,” some participants report they stayed with their abusive partner longer than they otherwise would have because their “pets” “kept them going” by providing them with the social support necessary to cope with the abuse. The importance of the social support provided by “pets” is further evidenced by the finding detailed herein that some participants cite their “pets” as the reason they did not end their own lives. It is argued that “pets” are uniquely situated to provide social support to some abused women and can even serve a protective function against suicidality. Therefore, in order to adequately address the needs of abused women, particularly related to suicidality, the important roles “pets” can play in their lives must be taken seriously and, ideally, fostered.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it