Number of cats and dogs in UK welfare organisations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is not known how many cats and dogs are admitted to welfare organisations annually. This study produced the first estimates of the size of this population. A questionnaire was mailed out to welfare organisations during 2010, followed by a postal/email reminder and requests to non-responders for a telephone interview. The questionnaire covered areas including, the current number of cats and dogs being housed, how much of the year organisations were operating at full capacity as well as the number of cats and dogs admitted, rehomed and euthanased between January and December 2009. Responses were obtained from 54.8 per cent of organisations. Sixty-six per cent of cat welfare organisations and 48 per cent of dog welfare organisations reported that they operated at full capacity for 12 months of the year. The number of cats and dogs entering UK welfare organisations during 2009 was estimated as 131,070 and 129,743, respectively. This highlights the scale of the work performed by welfare organisations in caring for and rehoming unwanted cats and dogs annually and emphasises the urgent need to address concerns over the considerable number of these animals. This study has also produced useful baseline data, which will be essential for monitoring population changes 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".