“It’s not all Puppies and Sunshine”: Veterinary Workers’ Emotional Comfort Zones and Companion Animal Euthanasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to generate knowledge about how workers react to intensely emotional workplace experiences, we conducted 54 interviews with employees at five veterinary clinics, focusing on the task of companion animal euthanasia. Although many veterinary workers struggle to cope with the intense emotions of euthanasia early in their careers, over time they learn about their personal preferences for feeling and expressing emotion during euthanasia. We term these preferences for emotional experience “emotional comfort zones.” These comfort zones vary from worker to worker, with some preferring to be more immersed in the intense emotions of euthanasia and others more detached. Further, workers learn how to regulate their emotions in order to stay within their comfort zones, sometimes aided by aspects of the situation such as routines, but also sometimes hindered by events that can “pull” or “shock” workers into uncomfortably intense, unwanted emotions. We explain how these and other findings contribute to improved understanding of how workers manage intense emotions at work, and present implications for managers and employees.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".