Social Work and Human Animal Bonds and Benefits in Health Research
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
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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