MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036586150 · doi:10.1207/s15327604jaws0802_2

Rates of Euthanasia and Adoption for Dogs and Cats in Michigan Animal Shelters

2005· article· en· W2036586150 on OpenAlexaff
Paul C. Bartlett, Andrew Bartlett, Sally O. Walshaw, Stephen Halstead

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Animal Welfare Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverpopulationCATSCompanion animalPopulationAnimal welfareAnimal-assisted therapyVeterinary medicineDemographyMedicinePet therapyEnvironmental healthBiologyEcologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estimates of canine and feline euthanasia at U.S. animal shelters--largely based on voluntary surveys with low response rates--make it difficult to estimate the population from which the euthanized animals derive. Estimates of euthanasia rates (animals euthanized per unit of population) have varied widely and been available only sporadically. This study used requirements of Michigan state law (Pet Shops, Dog Pounds, and Animal Shelters Act, 1969) for animal shelters to collect admission and discharge data for all 176 Michigan-licensed animal shelters. In 2003, Michigan shelters discharged 140,653 dogs: Of these, 56,972 (40%) were euthanized; 40,005 (28%) were adopted. This annual euthanasia rate is 2.6% of the estimated 2003 Michigan dog population. Michigan shelters discharged 134,405 cats in 2003: 76,321 (57%) by euthanasia and (24%) by adoption. The estimated ratio of euthanized cats to cats who had owners was 3.1%. Small shelters and privately owned shelters were associated with higher adoption rates. Comparison with historical information from the past 10 to 20 years suggests the number of companion animals being euthanized in shelters has decreased and that progress has been made in reducing the companion animal overpopulation problem.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations54
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Animal Welfare ScienceSame topicHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesFrench-language works237,207