Keynote: Is it a Pet or Not? Students Claiming Disability Assistance Animal Status for their mental or emotional health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The definition of disability assistance animal in anti-discrimination laws is being interpreted more broadly than ever, as therapists and scientists identify new ways animals can assist people with impairments. Use of non-canine species and uncertainty with training guidelines are creating resource and evidential challenges for stakeholders who need to determine how to train an animal, if the animal should be certified (government), and if the animal should be granted access (university staff and students). When the disability is obvious and the animal is a traditionally accepted service dog, then the assessment is easy. For example, a blind person with a Labrador in a distinctive harness. Other situations are more complex, for example, a lady with depression with a cat; a man with anxiety and a duck; a student managing stress and their snake. This leads to problems such as who assesses the animal and handler to determine if they qualify for protected status; what criteria do they use; how do they communicate the outcome of that assessment in a way that balances privacy, but allows effective access and appropriate denials of access.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".