MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132478919

Importance of "One Health" conception and animal welfare in dog therapy

2024· article· en· W7132478919 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mindaugas Sėjūnas

Bibliographic record

VenueLithuanian University of Health Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistero della Salute
KeywordsAnimal welfareWelfareAnimal-assisted therapyPromotion (chess)HarmMental health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our emotions are particularly important to dogs because they not only feel and express emotions, but also read people’s emotional expressions. Dogs can respond functionally to emotional expressions and can use emotional information from other people to solve problems, i.e. getting information from faces and body postures allows them to make decisions [1]. This suggests that the behaviour of dogs reflects the behaviour, attitudes and emotional state of the people around them. This must be taken into account when working with therapy dogs. Recently, there has been a move to assess the impact of human-animal interaction on therapy dogs involved in human health care as widely as possible. The aim is to include the welfare of therapy dogs in the “One Health” framework. “The importance of animal welfare is increasingly acknowledged, indicating that the Ottawa Charter should be extended to include the welfare of non-human animals supporting the promotion of human health” [2]. The principle of “One Health” welfare recognises the benefits of the humananimal relationship and the promotion of health, while emphasising the importance of understanding animal welfare and the potential effects of physical and mental harm on therapy animals. Protection of animal welfare is based on five principles: nutrition, physical environment, health, behavioural interactions and mental state. Practitioners working with therapy dogs must be guided by ethical challenges, as the involvement of dogs in therapy can be fraught with tensions when people use the animal to achieve their own goals, and the dog has no such goals [2]. The main danger is the possible use of the dog as a therapeutic tool to provide emotional or therapeutic support, rejecting the animal as an individual with its own needs. The dog’s welfare may be neglected; signs that the dog is showing signs of stress or is overtired may be ignored. Exhaustion, illness, intimidating environments, limited access to water, high temperatures and other stressors can not only adversely affect a dog’s mental and physical health but can also lead to negative experiences that can have a profound effect on a dog’s suitability for therapeutic activities. It has been observed that dogs were sensitive to the stress of the owner; a sensitivity reflected the well-being of the owner, which had a significant impact on the behaviour of the dog [3]. In the field of therapy dogs, there is a lack of guidelines and protocols for the ethical relationship between animals and humans, which define the welfare of the animal.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLithuanian University of Health SciencesSame topicHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesFrench-language works237,207