Gender and Age Differences in Children’s Perceptions of Self-Companion Animal Interactions Expressed through Drawings
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
This study explored gender and age differences in children’s perceptions of their interactions with companion animals, as represented through drawings and written descriptions. The study included 77 school-aged children (50 girls, 27 boys; aged 6 to 12 years) who attended a one-week humane education summer camp that aimed to promote positive interactions with animals. Children completed drawings of their interactions with companion animals and provided accompanying written descriptions. The results suggested that boys’ drawings and written descriptions showed more cognitively-based perceptions of self-companion animal interactions. In contrast, girls’ drawings and written descriptions showed more emotionally-focused perceptions. The drawings and written descriptions of younger (versus older) girls included the highest percentage of emotional language. In contrast, older (versus younger) boys used the highest percentage of emotional language to describe their self-companion animal drawings. Implications for gendered, developmentally sensitive, school-based programs aimed to encourage positive interactions between children and animals 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) | 0.001 | 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