Bibliographic record
Abstract
When companion animal interact closely with people, the roles they play may be categorized in terms of three major functions. The projective Junction involves the extent to which pets may serve as a symbolic extension of the self. The sociability function involves the role of pets in facilitating human-to-human interaction. The surrogate function involves the extent to which interaction with pets may supplement human-to-human interaction, or serve as a substitute for it. A person publicly identified with a companion animal makes a symbolic statement of their personality and self-image. Whether or not this process is intentional, the presence of a pet and the way it is treated become factors which are taken into account in the assessment of the social self. Pets facilitate interaction by being social lubricants. They provide a neutral subject of conversation, and perform a variety of functions as social catalysts. Since interaction with companion animals can approximate human companionship, the presence of pets may serve to supplement the benefits usually derived from the roles of friend, parent, spouse, or child. Alternatively, pets may serve as surrogate antagonists. In the extreme, interaction with companion animals may not only supplement human companionship, but may actually replace it. These three major functions are discussed with examples. Implications are noted for future research on companion animals.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".