Reasons for Guardian-Relinquishment of Dogs to Shelters: Animal and Regional Predictors in British Columbia, Canada
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Dogs are relinquished to animal shelters for animal-related or guardian-related reasons. Understanding what drives relinquishment patterns is essential for informing intervention opportunities to keep animals with their guardians. Whereas, overall reasons for relinquishment in a given shelter system have been well explored, analysis of human and animal predictors of relinquishing for a specific reason has not been previously attempted. We used characteristics of relinquishment including year, population of the relinquishing guardian's region, health status of the dog, breed, age group, weight, and sex to predict reasons for dog relinquishment to British Columbia (BC) Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) shelters across BC between 2008 and 2019 ( n = 32,081). Relinquishment trends for puppies and adult dogs were also viewed and described. From 2008–2019, the proportion of dogs relinquished relative to total intake remained consistent (range: 31–35%). Primary reasons reported by guardians were having too many dogs (19%), housing issues (17%), personal issues (15%), financial issues (10%), dog behavior (10%), and guardian health (8%). Over years, an increasing proportion of dogs were relinquished for the reason “too many” (OR = 1.16, 95% CI, 1.10–1.23, p < 0.001) and “behavior” (OR = 1.34, 95% CI, 1.26–1.43, p < 0.001), while a decreasing proportion were relinquished due to financial problems (OR = 0.94, 95% CI, 0.88–1.00, p = 0.047). Being a puppy, mixed breed, small, and from a small or medium population center predicted the reason “too many.” Being a senior, Healthy, or from a medium or large population center predicted the reason “housing issues.” Being a non-puppy, Healthy dog in a large population center predicted the reason “personal issues.” Being a puppy, non-Healthy, female, and from a large population center predicted the reason “financial issues.” Being a larger young adult or adult and Healthy predicted the reason “dog behavior.” Being an adult or senior small dog from a small population center predicted the reason “guardian health.” Particularly promising region-specific intervention opportunities include efforts to prevent too many animals in small population centers, improvement of pet-inclusive housing in large population centers, and providing animal care support in large population centers. Accessible veterinary services, including low-cost or subsidized care, likely benefit dog retention across BC.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle