Evaluation of the status of canine hydrotherapy in the UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To establish the current status of canine hydrotherapy in the UK and to ascertain information regarding the current use of hydrotherapy, a questionnaire was sent to 152 hydrotherapy centres throughout the UK, from which 89 responded. Hydrotherapy was found to be a rapidly growing business. Stand-alone centres were in existence; however, many centres were connected to other businesses, including boarding kennels and general practice veterinary surgeries. The dogs using the facility were mainly pedigree breeds, particularly labrador retrievers (30 per cent), and the most commonly encountered conditions were rupture of the cranial cruciate ligament (25 per cent), hip dysplasia (24 per cent) and osteoarthritis (18 per cent). The proportion of qualified versus unqualified staff varied between centres, highlighting a need for improved regulation of this aspect of the industry. However, all the dogs treated by the hydrotherapy centres surveyed were direct veterinary referrals, suggesting a good degree of professionalism in the field and a high regard for the benefits of hydrotherapy.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".