MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329788721 · doi:10.2190/om.69.4.a

Online Survey as Empathic Bridging for the Disenfranchised Grief of Pet Loss

2014· article· en· W2329788721 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGriefDisenfranchised griefPsychologyBridging (networking)Complicated griefPsychotherapistSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current cross-cultural study investigated grief reactions of bereaved individuals following the death of a pet. We used qualitative methodology to compare, analyze, and report responses of U.S. and French Canadian participants to the last open-ended question on our online pet loss survey. We explored the degree to which our data illustrated pet loss as disenfranchised grief and asked whether there are differences and commonalities in the expression of grief between the two samples. Four major themes emerged: lack of validation and support; intensity of loss; nature of the human pet relationship; and continuing bonds. Findings confirm that, for both the U.S. and French Canadian participants, pet loss is often disenfranchised grief and there are ways to facilitate expressions of grief. Many participants wrote that the survey was therapeutic. Our survey allowed participants to express their grief in an anonymous, safe way by serving as empathic bridging and a willingness to help others.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.513
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.315 · 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