The Colorado State University Pet Hospice Program: End-of-Life Care for Pets and Their Families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the concept of hospice care for humans has existed for decades and is an integral part of the dying process, providing hospice care for companion animals is a new and growing service. Veterinarians and pet-owners have recently recognized that there is a need and a demand to care for pets with terminal illnesses. The Colorado State University Pet Hospice program meets those needs through supporting pets, their owners, and veterinarians, and educating professional veterinary students in end-of-life care. Developed in 2003, Pet Hospice is a student-run program that trains veterinary students in animal hospice care, and matches them with the family and veterinarian of a terminally ill pet in the community. Since its inception, 101 veterinary student volunteers have been trained and provided support to 68 families. Continued expansion of the client base, enlargement of the network of veterinarians and volunteers, and positive program evaluations reflect the strong impact of Pet Hospice and its support from veterinary students, veterinarians, and the community.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".