MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086074786 · doi:10.1080/13504622.2014.999226

Fostering kinship with animals: animal portraiture in humane education

2015· article· en· W2086074786 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Linda Kalof, Joe Zammit-Lucia, Jessica Bell, Gina M Granter

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Education Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnimal and Plant Science Education
Canadian institutionsDawson College
FundersDalhousie UniversityConcordia University
KeywordsSentienceKinshipFeelingPsychologyPerceptionAnimal welfareMeaning (existential)Social psychologyHUBzeroDevelopmental psychologyPet therapySociologyEcologyEnvironmental ethicsAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Visual depictions of animals can alter human perceptions of, emotional responses to, and attitudes toward animals. Our study addressed the potential of a slideshow designed to activate emotional responses to animals to foster feelings of kinship with them. The personal meaning map measured changes in perceptions of animals. The participants were 51 students enrolled at a pre-university college in Montreal, Quebec. Major conceptual themes were developed based on students’ responses on the PMM both pre- and post-slideshow. Ninety-two percent changed their perceptions of ‘Animal’ after viewing the slideshow. Pre-slideshow perceptions of ‘Animal’ were described primarily as Pets/Symbols, Biological/Wild Nature, Commodity/Resource, and Dangerous. After the show, the perceptions shifted to Kinship and Sentience/Individuality, with substantial increases in the depth and emotion associated with responses. Thus, viewing animal portraiture improved feelings of kinship with animals and enhanced perceptions of animal individuality in a classroom setting.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.203
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations46
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Education ResearchSame topicAnimal and Plant Science EducationFrench-language works237,207