MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173111569 · doi:10.1177/08862605211025037

Animal Safekeeping in Situations of Intimate Partner Violence: Experiences of Human Service and Animal Welfare Professionals

2021· article· en· W3173111569 on OpenAlexaffabout
Crystal J. Giesbrecht

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interpersonal Violence · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomestic violenceAnimal welfareMedicineService providerHuman servicesService (business)CrueltyNursingPoison controlSuicide preventionPsychologyEnvironmental healthBusinessCriminologyPolitical scienceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although knowledge of the link between intimate partner violence (IPV) and animal maltreatment has increased significantly in recent years, few studies have examined service providers’ experiences with IPV and concurrent animal abuse, as well as animal safekeeping in situations of IPV. The present study documented human service and animal welfare service providers’ experiences supporting victims/survivors of IPV, who owned pets and livestock, and included service providers in rural and northern communities in Saskatchewan. Online surveys were completed by 128 human service professionals (including domestic violence shelter workers, domestic violence counsellors, victim services workers, police, and legal professionals) and 43 animal welfare professionals (including workers from animal rescues, humane societies, Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals [SPCAs], and veterinary clinics) ( n = 171). Respondents shared information relating to their awareness of the link; their experiences responding in situations of IPV and concurrent animal abuse, including arranging animal safekeeping in situations of IPV; and successes and challenges related to effective service provision. Results include descriptions of intersecting risks to people and animals. Service providers shared ways that they have assisted victims/survivors who own animals, such as through animal safekeeping programs. Both human service and animal welfare professionals expressed the need for pet-friendly domestic violence shelters and pet-friendly long-term housing options. Service providers offered recommendations for improving education and training; improving provision of services of victims/survivors of IPV and their animals, including improving access to Emergency Intervention Orders and establishing funding for animal safekeeping in situations of IPV; and strengthening existing and building new partnerships.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interpersonal ViolenceSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207