MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311998133 · doi:10.1079/hai.2022.0026

Survey of international academic centers and institutes focused on human-animal bond: Scope and landscape in 2021

2022· article· en· W4311998133 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Leanne O. Nieforth, Sarah C. Leighton, Elise A. Miller, Marguerite E. O’Haire

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman-Animal Interactions · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
KeywordsCertificateSpecialtyQuarter (Canadian coin)Scope (computer science)Medical educationSurvey data collectionPsychologyMedicinePublic relationsPolitical scienceFamily medicineGeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Routine surveying of academic centers focused on the human-animal bond is critical to understand the trajectory of the field and to create an environment where centers can learn from one another and build collaborations. The purpose of this manuscript was to report the findings of a survey of these human-animal bond centers, to summarize the status of the field, and to identify changes within the field since 2016. Survey questions concentrated on the demographic characteristics, engagement programs, educational opportunities, and research focuses of the centers. Findings suggest that the field continues to grow as one-third of human-animal bond centers are less than 10 years old. The number of centers that participated in this survey increased by 31% compared to the previous survey (O'Haire et al., 2018). Centers have developed a variety of engagement programs, including animal-assisted intervention and companion animal education programs. About half of the centers (48%) offer degree programs and about one quarter of the centers (24%) offer certificate programs. Most centers (95%) focus their research on companion animals with the most studied companion animal being dogs (95%). The most frequent data collection method was surveys (86%). Qualitative analyses, behavior measures, and physiological measures were also common. The most notable changes from the 2016 survey include overall growth of the field (indicated by the establishment of new centers) and a shift in the specialty area of directors, moving from 44% of directors being veterinarians in 2016 survey to 90% having a human-focused specialty in the 2021 survey. Most centers' research focused on animal-assisted interventions which is consistent with the previous survey. As the field of the human-animal bond continues to grow and more centers emerge, ongoing evaluation of offerings is important to track changes, identify needs, and foster success.

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)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.333 · 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.

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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman-Animal InteractionsSame topicHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesFrench-language works237,207