MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782021334 · doi:10.3390/vetsci5010002

When Veterinarians Support Canine Therapy: Bidirectional Benefits for Clinics and Therapy Programs

2018· article· en· W2782021334 on OpenAlex
John-Tyler Binfet, Haley J. Silas, Sean Longfellow, Katrina Widmaier-Waurechen

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipAllianceAgency (philosophy)Work (physics)MedicineBusinessMedical educationFamily medicinePolitical scienceSociologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a mutually beneficial model of collaboration between veterinarians and canine therapy programs. Veterinarians and the clinics for whom they work routinely establish collaborations with multiple and varied stakeholders. This might include a laboratory for processing samples and the corresponding courier company needed to deliver samples to the lab or a partnership with a local dog rescue organization for whom discounted rates are offered. One community partnership that stands to benefit both the clinic and the community agency, is for veterinarians to work in tandem with a local canine-assisted therapy program. The benefits to such an alliance are multifold and address aspects of veterinary medicine including client recruitment, community education, and access to a network of devoted dog enthusiasts.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.435

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.281 · 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