Re-Imagining Disenfranchised Grief as it Relates to Animal Companions and Its Importance to Social Work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This major research paper looks at the negative impacts of disenfranchised grief, specifically in relation to the loss of animals and what that means for social work. I conducted four interviews with participants where I used an arts-based narrative study to explore the stories of losing their animal, using music to help people to frame their grief. I found that all the participants experienced similar disenfranchised grief and lack of support from institutions as well as some people in their life. The participants all enjoyed the opportunity to tell their stories and explore their grief through music which helped me notice the differing ways in which people frame their grief. Some participants simply grieved the loss of their animal, while others saw it through the context of their own mortality. Social work should consider people’s connection to animals in policy design and when working directly with service users.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.072 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".