How dogs influence the evaluation of psychotherapists
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
Research has shown that the presence of a companion animal reduces anxiety, encourages interaction among humans and enhances the way in which people are perceived. These are all effects which would be useful in a psychotherapeutic setting. On this basis the current study investigated the effect of the presence of a dog on the way in which people perceive psychotherapists. The study utilized an experimental design in which participants viewed a videotape of one of two therapists who were either with or without a dog. It was hypothesized that people would respond more positively to the psychotherapists when accompanied by a dog; specifically, that they would be more generally satisfied and would be more willing to disclose personal information, and that these effects would be influenced by attitudes towards pets. The first two hypotheses were confirmed. The effect was most pronounced among those who were the least positive toward the psychotherapist, demonstrating a ceiling effect. Contrary to the last hypothesis, attitudes toward pets had no influence on the perceptions of psychotherapists. History of pet ownership had only minimal impact on the results. Practical applications and directions for further research are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 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