Bibliographic record
Abstract
other words, they [pets] make us feel betted--Sable, 2013, p. 94. Tony Treanor, Director of Human Resources at Northwestern Counseling & Support Services (NCSS), was faced with making an important policy decision. Employees at his Vermont-based nonprofit human services agency wanted to bring to work. At different times clients and staff have wanted to bring pets into our facilities, he said. Treanor, a pet owner himself, was open to the idea but was concerned about the consequences of allowing in the workplace. For example, would all employees and clients welcome at NCSS? How would people who fear or are allergic to react to in the workplace? NCSS currently didn't have a written policy addressing the issue. We do not have a policy but, as a rule, we allow pets in the workplace, Treanor noted. That is by choice with us so that we can bend as we may need or want to. Treanor added that employees had, on occasion, brought a new puppy or dog to work if they had a veterinary appointment during the workday. Confounding the issue was that service had long been permitted at NCSS. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) required that service be permitted where the public is allowed. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) defines service as dogs that are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities (ADA Requirements, 2011). DOJ guidelines made a distinction between service and pets characterizing service as trained working animals that provided a service not merely comfort or emotional support. Should Treanor continue with no official policy, adopt a policy permitting dogs, or should he adopt a written policy prohibiting them? Should he maintain the current distinction between service and pets? Adopting an informal don't ask, tell policy on at work was also an option. Concerned with maintaining good employee morale, Treanor researched the issue of in the workplace in order to make a recommendation to members of the NCSS leadership team. Northwestern Counseling & Support Services Founded in 1958, NCSS was a private nonprofit human services agency whose mission was to ensure that the residents of Franklin and Grand Isle Counties have access to high quality services, which promote healthy living and emotional well-being (Northwestern, 2015). NCSS provided over 75 community mental health programs to children, adolescents, and adults in Northwestern Vermont near Lake Champlain and the Canadian border. These programs were designed to help Vermonters with behavioral or emotional problems; mental and/or developmental disabilities; autism; and substance abuse problems. Services were provided in schools, homes, at a family center in St. Albans, Vermont, and at a parent-child center in Alburg, Vermont. The agency's administrative offices were located in St. Albans. NCSS was accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF), an independent accreditor of health and human service agencies. In fiscal year 2013, NCSS had a budget of $32 million and had 505 employees-300 of which worked off site in the community. NCSS's budget was spent on Developmental Services (41%); Children, Youth and Family Services (39%); Adult Behavioral Services (16%); Crisis Services (4%); and Administration ( Pet Ownership Americans love pets. In 2012, sixty-two percent of U.S. households (164 million) had at least one pet. Forty-seven percent had at least one dog while 46% had at least one cat (Humane Society, 2013). Additionally, Herzog (2010) reported that in 2009, Americans shared their homes with 15 million birds, 14 million reptiles, 16 million small mammals, and 180 million fish. …
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".