An Exploratory Study of Veterinary Professionals’ Self-Reported Support of Bereaved Clients Before, During, and After Companion Animal Euthanasia in Southwestern Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Veterinary professionals are recognized as an important source of support for many veterinary clients, particularly during companion animal euthanasia and end-of-life care. While many veterinary professionals recognize the importance of their role, many also report feeling unsure about what methods of support are most effective. Furthermore, few evidence-based guidelines currently exist to inform veterinary professionals on the support of grieving clients. To begin bridging this gap, this study qualitatively explored how veterinary professionals currently report supporting grieving clients before, during, and after companion animal euthanasia. Findings suggest that veterinary participants in this study strive to be meaningful sources of support for grieving clients and employ an array of support practice to do so. However, opportunities exist for veterinary professionals to better explore clients' needs, expectations, and feelings as they relate to companion animal euthanasia, including offering more grief-related resources and access to professional counseling services.
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".