MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400863924 · doi:10.1079/hai.2024.0021

Foster parents’ experiences with animal companions while fostering children and youth

2024· article· en· W4400863924 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 institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFoster parentsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineFoster careNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This qualitative exploratory inquiry examined foster parents’ perspectives of the impact companion animals had on the children/youth in their care. Six foster parents were interviewed and six themes, including 12 subthemes, were uncovered: (1) provision of companionship (unconditional love); (2) strengthening of the foster home environment (environmental connection, increased feelings of safety); (3) teaching empathy (responsibility, compassion); (4) emotional regulation (grief, emotional support, calming presence); (5) benefits to foster parents (friendship, affection, emotional support, additional support); and (6) challenges. These findings have important implications for social work practice. Specific recommendations based on the findings are presented.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.702
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.304 · 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