MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391918974 · doi:10.1079/hai.2024.0003

Recommendations for uniform terminology in animal-assisted services (AAS)

2024· article· en· W4391918974 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 · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Animal Health Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerminologyService providerScope (computer science)Psychological interventionService (business)Best practiceKnowledge managementProcess managementComputer scienceMedicineBusinessNursingPolitical scienceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Through the years, the range of services involving animals benefiting people, often described as “animal-assisted interventions” (AAIs), has been plagued with confusing and inconsistent taxonomy, terminology, and definitions. This has caused difficulties for the delineation of roles of service providers, for the recipients of services, as well as for the preparation, training, and expectations of the animals that work in different roles. It can be argued that these difficulties have compromised the development of the field in terms of establishing agreed standards of practice, qualifications, and competencies and adopting good animal welfare practices. It has also likely limited the base of evidence, as search terms used to access studies are not consistent, and study protocols are difficult to compare, lacking uniformity in terminology. Additionally, the current terminology cannot accommodate the expansion and diversification of programs in recent years, which is likely to continue as the field evolves. Establishing internationally agreed upon uniform taxonomy, terminology, and definitions is crucial to more accurately reflect the key features of different approaches, to define the scope and competencies for different service providers and their animals, to provide transparency about services for recipients, and to ensure the appropriate preparation, training, and support of the animals that work with them. The recommendations in this article are the result of an international work group that convened over the course of two years. The umbrella term animal-assisted services (AAS) is proposed, defined as services that are facilitated, guided or mediated by a health or human service provider or educator, who works with and maintains the welfare of a specially alongside a specially qualifying animal to provide therapeutic, educational, supportive and/or ameliorative processes aimed at enhancing the well-being of humans. AAS are further categorized into three main areas: treatment, education, and support programs. A recommendation for provider-specific terminology is also suggested. The aim of these proposals is to set clear expectations and boundaries for each specialty of practice, without compromising the richness and diversity of each approach. The adoption of this new umbrella term and its categories is intended to improve clarity for all involved in the receipt and delivery of services, as well as for those who study their effects.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.356 · 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