Companion-Animal Relinquishment: Exploration of the Views Expressed by Primary Stakeholders within Published Reviews and Commentaries
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
Abstract There is a need to further understand companion-animal relinquishment in order to prevent it. This study explored published reviews and commentaries, written by primary stakeholders, on companion-animal relinquishment, including 77 reviews and commentaries published between 1973 and 2011. The analysis-method framework is conducive to analyzing reviews and commentaries on a complex social phenomenon such as companion-animal relinquishment. Four themes emerged: identified reasons caretakers relinquish, solutions to relinquishment, euthanasia as an outcome of relinquishment, and the role of research in addressing relinquishment. Research-based views about reasons for relinquishment were most commonly discussed. Only a few research articles were cited, highlighting the impact of these few studies on stakeholders’ perceptions. The predominant solution discussed was education, while future research suggestions focused on investigating interventions. Findings provide insight into the influences on stakeholders’ views, including their use and interpretation of existing research.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it