MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200641882 · doi:10.62845/ejsght6

Considerations for Recommending Service Dogs versus Emotional Support Animals for Veterans with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

2021· article· en· W3200641882 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Macy Porter, Melissa Winkle, Ellen Herlache-Pretzer

Bibliographic record

VenuePeople and Animals The International Journal of Research and Practice · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth Science Center, University of Tennessee
KeywordsTraumatic stressPsychologyEmotional supportService memberService (business)Emotional healthClinical psychologyPosttraumatic stressMedicineSocial supportMental healthPsychiatryPsychotherapistMilitary personnel

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Health care providers must understand factors that may guide the decision-making process for determining whether a veteran with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is appropriate for a service dog (SD) versus an emotional support animal (ESA), and assist SD training organizations in determining trained tasks that are suitable for the veteran’s needs. Purpose: This study explored the perspectives of SD training organizations and factors for human health care providers to consider before recommending a veteran with PTSD for a SD versus an ESA. The researchers identified information that providers should give organizations to guide the SD training and placement process. Methods: A nonexperimental web-based survey research design, including closed- and open-ended questions, was used to collect data. The sample population included SD training organizations in the United States and Canada that train SDs for veterans who have PTSD. Results: Results suggest that there are skills that can be completed by both SDs and ESAs, and specific tasks that can be only completed by SDs. Health care providers must consider factors related to animal welfare, human cognitive and psychosocial functioning, symptomatology, and expectations when determining if a veteran is a good fit for a SD versus an ESA. For veterans who are appropriate for a SD, information about individual functioning and needs in the above areas can help trainers make the best decisions regarding SD dog matching and training. Conclusion: Health care providers can play an important role in determining if a veteran with PTSD may benefit from a SD versus an ESA, and help SD training organization make informed decisions regarding SD partnership and training. Health care providers must have a strong understanding of the roles and functions of SDs and ESAs, and how dog partnership may help or hinder a veteran’s pursuit of independence in daily activities at home and in the community.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeople and Animals The International Journal of Research and PracticeSame topicHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesFrench-language works237,207