MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385559001 · doi:10.1079/hai.2023.0029

The role of the human-canine bond in recovery from substance use disorder: A scoping review and narrative synthesis protocol

2023· review· en· W4385559001 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman-Animal Interactions · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ReginaUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersHuman Animal Bond Research Institute
KeywordsAcknowledgementNarrativeProtocol (science)Thematic analysisPsychologyPsychological interventionApplied psychologyMedicineQualitative researchComputer scienceAlternative medicineSocial scienceSociologyPsychiatryPathologyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recovery from substance use disorder (SUD) can be conceptualized as a personal journey that includes connection with self and others, as well as animals – known as the human-animal bond (HAB). Research shows that canines are the most common type of animal integrated into animal-assisted interventions to support people with SUD and that there is growing acknowledgement of companion animals in the lives of people with SUD. Yet, to our knowledge, there has been no review of the evidence related to the role of canines specific to SUD and recovery. To address this gap, the objective of this scoping review is to examine the literature on the role of the human-canine bond with respect to recovery from SUD among adolescents and adults, including how the bond may help or hinder recovery. The review will consider papers that describe the human-canine bond with respect to SUD recovery in any recovery- or therapy-related setting globally. Several databases will be searched for published and unpublished literature in the English language from database inception to present. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews will be used, and two independent reviewers will screen titles, abstracts, and full texts, and extract information from the included articles using a piloted data extraction sheet. The reference lists of included articles will be examined for any additional sources. A thematic approach will be used to examine the extracted data, and the findings will be presented using a tabular analysis and a narrative summary.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.708
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.355 · 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