MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2977114734 · doi:10.3389/fvets.2019.00349

Geographic Availability of Assistance Dogs: Dogs Placed in 2013–2014 by ADI- or IGDF-Accredited or Candidate Facilities in the United States and Canada, and Non-accredited U.S. Facilities

2019· article· en· W2977114734 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sandra Walther, Mariko Yamamoto, Abigail P. Thigpen, Neil H. Willits, Lynette A. Hart

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Veterinary Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of California, DavisZoetisCenter for Companion Animal Health, University of California, DavisPfizer
KeywordsAccreditationMedicineFamily medicineMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assistance dogs’ roles have diversified to support people with various disabilities, especially in the U.S. Data presented here are from the U.S. and Canada non-profit member and candidate facilities of Assistance Dogs International (ADI) and the International Guide Dog Federation (IGDF), and from non-accredited U.S. assistance dog training facilities, on the numbers and types of dogs they placed in 2013 and 2014 with persons who have disabilities. ADI categories of assistance dogs are for guide, hearing, and service (including mobility, autism, psychiatric, diabetes, seizure) dogs. Accredited facilities in 22 states and 3 provinces responded; other accredited facilities in 22 states and 1 province (sometimes in the same states/provinces as accredited facilities) did not respond. Non-accredited facilities in 16 states responded. Results from 55 U.S./Canada responding accredited facilities show placements of 2,374 dogs; results from 22 non-accredited U.S. facilities show 797 placements. Accredited facilities placed similar numbers of dogs for guiding (n = 918) or mobility (n = 943). Mobility dogs were placed by more U.S./Canada facilities than were guide dogs; some of these facilities placed more dogs for autism or another role than for mobility. Autism dogs were third most for accredited (n = 205) and U.S. non-accredited (n = 72) facilities. Psychiatric dogs were fourth most common in accredited placements (n = 119), accounting for most placements (n = 526) in non-accredited facilities. Other U.S./Canada accredited placements were for: hearing (n=109); diabetic alert (n=69), and seizure alert (n=11). Responding non-accredited facilities placed 17 hearing dogs, 30 diabetic alert dogs, and 18 seizure alert/response dogs. Mainly non-accredited facilities placed dogs for psychiatric assistance, but veterans then are disqualified for financial reimbursement. Autism dogs were increasingly being placed even by accredited organizations. Twenty states and several provinces had no responding facilities; 17 of these states had no accredited facilities. In regions lacking facilities, people with disabilities face particular geographic challenges, living far from any supportive facility. Despite accelerated U.S./Canada placements, availability of well-trained assistance dogs continues to be challenging and inconvenient for many people with disabilities, and the numerous sources of expensive, poorly trained dogs can add confusion for potential handlers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Veterinary ScienceSame topicHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesFrench-language works237,207