Peoples perception of pet illness – is it still disenfranchised?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: the aim of this study was to investigate whether people's reactions to another person’s pet illness is viewed as appropriate by presenting two groups of participants with two vignettes, one where the pet owner is annoyed at their pet being unwell and one where they are upset at their pet being unwell. By investigating the responses of participants via an appropriateness scale we can then assess to see if pet illness and loss is still socially acceptable grief or if it is still disenfranchised grief. Method: an online questionnaire was distributed to participants (n=191). Participants were recruited through convenience sampling. The questionnaire consisted of demographic information, two vignettes, with all participants seeing one of the two vignettes, modified Witnessing of Disenfranchised Grief (WDG) questionnaire and the Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ). Results: the results of this study indicated that pet grief is not a form of disenfranchised grief and that being upset is an appropriate response to pet grief. With regard to gender, males and females do not significantly differ on empathy levels. This result indicates that those with higher levers of empathy towards their own pet have higher levels of negative affect in relation to a pet owners’ reaction to their own pet being unwell.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".