Considering Cats, Dogs, and Contradictions: Pets and Their Relational Influence on Experiences of Aging in Place
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relationships with companion animals, or "pets", may promote health and well-being for older adults as they age-in-place. Less is known, however, about ways that pet-related challenges may simultaneously influence aging-in-place experiences. This study explores the relational qualities of having pets later in life by considering qualitative accounts of older adults who are aging in the community. Semi-structured interviews with 14 socio-economically diverse, community-dwelling older adult pet-owners (≥ 60 years) living in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, were analyzed reflexively. Four recurring themes suggested that companion animal relationships were valued in older adults' lives and helped them cope with challenging circumstances, even when pets were central to these challenges. Findings also confirmed the relational nature of human-animal relationships as being shaped by both individual attributes and systemic factors. Methodological approaches to addressing these multifaceted complexities when studying pets and aging are considered. Enhanced cross-sectoral community and policy-level supports for aging-in-place with pets may have a population-level influence on health, well-being, and social justice across the socio-demographically diverse aging population.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".