Bibliographic record
Abstract
This easy-to-read book for the cat enthusiast is written to “raise the alarm” regarding flaws in commercial diets fed today. The author attributes feline inflammatory cystitis, kidney failure, hyperthyroidism, as well as inflammatory bowel disease to mistakes in diet formulation. The author’s credentials include being a veterinarian since 1977, as well as a cat breeder. She also presents facts and opinions gleaned through her involvement in the pet health insurance industry and as an executive for a pet food manufacturer. Speaking on nutrition, Hodgkins suggests that cats have a low thirst drive. Feeding dry food creates concentrated urine with resultant medical problems. She eliminates all dry foods from consideration when choosing a food for cats. When contemplating food ingredients, the author calls for a stop to feeding “foods meant more for fattening cattle than nourishing a top predator.” Her answer is a high protein, low carbohydrate food provided by either a canned commercial preparation or a raw meat diet. As well, the author suggests that pet foods are not tested sufficiently prior to being sold and pets are being used as unknowing victims in ongoing food experiments. She thinks that veterinarians are seeing chronic diseases resulting from inadequate diets, but they haven’t made the connection between disease and inferior nutrition. There are very detailed chapters on how to battle obesity as well as managing chronic renal failure. The recommendations make sense based on Hodgkin’s assumptions. Many other diseases commonly seen in cats are also explained for the lay person. The author advocates keeping cats indoors for their own safety, but this could be due to the area where she resides. There are also some ideas introduced for keeping cats socially happy and how to avoid behaviors that owners find annoying. The over-riding goals of the book are to assist cat owners in taking better care of their cat and to look at the current recommendations critically. The facts presented by Hodgkins can be taken in one of two ways. Some veterinarians would consider her views as opinion unsubstantiated by fact. The opposing view is that she presents progressive material that will be proven over time.
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 | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".