Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42682386›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2026

The 3Fs as conditions of being: relational ontology and equine welfare in disaster response and reconciliation.

Dana Grinde

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Dana GrindeSchool of Health in Social Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Disaster relief work requires the collaboration of many stakeholders and can be viewed through a One Health lens, emphasising transdisciplinarity and an openness to different ways of knowing as well as an appreciation of the interdependence of human, animal, environmental health, and welfare. This perspective piece provides an autoethnographic account of a wildfire response in Western Canada in which a herd of free-ranging horses was rescued outside of conventional disaster management protocol. Through lived experience, the convergence between equine welfare, reconciliation, and relational ontology became visible. This has implications both for disaster management and for Fraser's 3Fs of equine welfare, offering a philosophical expansion that recognises conditions of being that, together, co-constitute the potential for flourishing. The perspective advanced here aims to shift equine welfare practice from the management of discrete variables toward a practice that is defined by relational integrity and accountability, in which humans and horses are bounded beings, where flourishing results from honouring the dynamic and entangled system-understood as a shared ground of being-that humans, animals, and land belong to. This work contributes to One Health approaches by foregrounding and exemplifying relational knowledge, which is often excluded from traditionally positivist disciplines. This work situates equine welfare within broader ethical movements, including decolonial projects, efforts toward multispecies justice, and the development of One Health approaches. This alignment extends responsibility beyond individual caregivers and invites a reorientation of welfare science toward a relational ontology, offering a framework that is both practically grounded and philosophically expansive.

Indexed as

3F frameworkautoethnographyequine flourishingmultispecies justiceonto-epistemology

Identifiers

PMID42682386
PMCPMC13529443

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.