Reviews of Science for Science Librarians: Companion Animal Welfare During Natural Disasters
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to present the results of a review to explore published accounts of companion animal welfare in the context of natural. We conducted a literature search limited to cats and dogs due to their popularity as pets worldwide and identified 1124 articles from which 91 were selected for analysis. Findings indicate a notable absence of legislation or policies at the national, regional, and municipal levels to respond to the needs of companion animals and to respect the bond between humans and their companion animals. Our research findings underscore the importance for policymakers to actively prioritize understanding the relationship between individuals and their companion animals. This proactive approach serves as a crucial mechanism for safeguarding human well-being and fostering healthier, more equitable communities. Based on our analyses, we conclude that the development of healthier and more equitable communities requires the development of targeted interventions that aim to protect and assist at risk companion animal families.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 it