Social Work and Human Animal Bonds and Benefits in Health Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
North Americans consider companion-animals as family members and increasingly as attachment figures. Across the health sciences and professions, substantial qualitative and mounting quantitative research provides evidence of health benefits of human animal interactions across the life cycle regarding diverse issues. In replicating a ground-breaking U.S. study designed to measure exposure to information and levels of knowledge and integration of human animal bonds (HAB) into practice, this present study, funded by the Nova Scotia Health Research Foundation, surveyed practitioners in Nova Scotia, Canada. Similar to the U.S. findings, this study revealed the majority of practitioners were uninformed about such benefits and about how they can be operationalized. As a result, the majority of practitioners in Nova Scotia are not including animals in practice, and notably, those who are, are doing so without the necessary education or training. The lack of preparation in human-animal interactions has serious implications for social work in that disparities and inequities between and among humans are related to the disparities between humans and other animals, society, and nature.
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 | 0.025 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".