Animal-assisted therapy in a Canadian psychiatric prison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prison-based animal programs are becoming increasingly common in North America. The majority focus on community and animal well-being, with less explicit therapeutic goals for human participants. The purpose of this paper is to measure the objectives of a canine animal-assisted therapy (AAT) program in a Canadian psychiatric prison and examine whether the program supports inmates' correctional plans. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A modified instrumental case study design was applied with three inmates over a 24-AAT-session program. Quantitative and qualitative AAT session data were collected and mid- and end-of-program interviews were held with the inmates, their mental health clinicians and the therapy dog handlers. FINDINGS: Inmates connected with the therapy dogs through the animals' perceived offering of love and support. This development of a human-animal bond supported inmates' correctional plans, which are largely situated within a cognitive-behavioral skill development framework. Specifically, inmates' connections with the therapy dogs increased recognition of their personal feelings and emotions and positively impacted their conduct. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: The findings suggest that prison-based AAT programs emphasizing inmate mental well-being, alongside that of animal and community well-being generally, merit further exploration. It would be worthwhile to assess this AAT program with a larger and more diverse sample of inmates and in a different institutional context and also to conduct a post-intervention follow-up. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This is the first study of a prison-based AAT program in a Canadian psychiatric correctional facility.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".