An Exploratory Study into the Backgrounds and Perspectives of Equine-Assisted Service Practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Equine-Assisted Services (EASs) are commonplace in today's society, but vary widely in both theoretical and practical applications. Until now, practitioners' experiences and perspectives in relation to these services have received little attention. To address this, a purpose-designed online questionnaire was distributed to EAS practitioners, exploring issues relating to the nature of the service provided, practice patterns, practitioner education, perceived knowledge, challenges faced and the future direction of these services. An analysis revealed a significant association between practitioners' backgrounds and the nature of the service offered, as well as perceived knowledge. Median EAS training received to first practice was 20 days of block release over a year; however, nearly half of the sample (42.4%) reported less training than this. Equine-specific training was more limited, with 41.5% of practitioners having no horse-relevant qualifications. The most important challenges reported by practitioners involved client and equine welfare, financial sustainability and raising awareness of EAS. This research highlights the diverse nature of EAS and also raises important challenges and possible opportunities for development. Findings suggest that more progress is needed to professionalise and legitimise the area to support and help practitioners provide the best service for all concerned.
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".