CO-SHELTERING COMPANION, “SERVICE”, AND “SUPPORT” ANIMALS IN ONTARIO, CANADA'S INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE SHELTERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study sought answers to the question: How do companion animals (CAs) fit in intimate partner violence (IPV) shelters in Ontario, Canada? Through semi-structured interviews with provincial shelter staff, we learn that CAs are not priorities for most shelters and are consequently infrequently co-sheltered. However, all of the shelters in the study accommodate “service” animals (SAs), following the requirements of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). The social position and role of nonhuman animals in the lives of both the IPV survivors and shelter workers are foregrounded in the results. We find that some clients and workers consider CAs family. Some workers lobby for and facilitate temporary or full inclusion of CAs in their shelter, and sometimes in their work, as co-caregivers. Some clients know of the SA-only conditions in these shelters, and consequently attempt to “pass off” their companion or emotional support animal (ESA) as SAs. The nonhuman animals’ lives and wellbeing in this study are precariously and variably determined by the humans they live with, and by those that help them. The human victims and helpers are found to be almost exclusively women, and the abusers, men. Clients in IPV shelters are essentially homeless, and examples of the persistent social problem of gender/sex-based violence, a consequence of the patriarchy. We find a meshing of gender/sex, class, species, and ability in these spaces, with multispecies families and ESAs most negatively affected by these social constructions. Upholding, for the most part, the SA-only requirement, the IPV shelters exemplify speciesist and ableist ideologies, where only certain disabilities warrant co-shelter away from violent environments. This study adds to what is known about nonhuman animal inclusion in IPV shelters, the views of workers and clients about their uses and social roles, and the impacts of these understandings.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".