MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2416367248 · doi:10.1097/jfn.0000000000000074

Taking a PAWS to Reflect on How the Work of a Therapy Dog Supports a Trauma-Informed Approach to Prisoner Health

2015· article· en· W2416367248 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Colleen Anne Dell, Nancy Poole

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Nursing · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women's HealthUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSubstance Abuse and Mental Health Services AdministrationCanadian Medical Association
KeywordsMental healthMedicineAddictionSubstance abusePopulationEmpowermentPsychologyPublic healthPsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada's Correctional Investigator has found that mental health disorders, alone or in combination with alcohol and drug abuse, challenge public health and safety. Trauma is a key contributor among Canada's inmate population. Therapy dogs can assist in supporting individuals with mental health, addiction, and trauma concerns. This case report presents the work of a St. John Ambulance therapy dog in a trauma-informed approach to prisoner health. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration articulates six evidence-based trauma principles for service providers; safety; trustworthiness and transparency; peer support; collaboration and mutuality; empowerment, voice, and choice; and cultural, historical, and gender issues. These principles are used as a lens to examine what the therapy dog appears to offer instinctively and effortlessly in its interactions with prisoners. Illustrative examples are provided.Video Abstract available for additional insights from the authors (see Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JFN/A16).

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.211

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0350.033
Scholarly communication0.0160.012
Open science0.0030.011
Research integrity0.0090.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations19
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic NursingSame topicHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesFrench-language works237,207