MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2291324981

Survey of euthanasia practices in animal shelters in Canada.

2011· article· en· W2291324981 on OpenAlexaffabout
Niamh Caffrey, Aboubakar Mounchili, Sandra McConkey, M.S. Cockram

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntracardiac injectionCATSPentobarbitalMedicineAdministration (probate law)Animal-assisted therapyAnimal welfarePet therapyMedical emergencyFamily medicineAnesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicinePolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Questionnaires on methods of euthanasia used in Canadian animal shelters were sent to 196 Canadian animal shelters yielding 67 responses. Sodium pentobarbital injection was the only method of euthanasia used by 61% of establishments that euthanized dogs and 53% of the establishments that euthanized cats. Many of these establishments used pre-medication. Sodium pentobarbital was mostly administered intravenously but some establishments also used intracardiac and intraperitoneal routes, and some only used intracardiac administration for cats. T-61 injection was the only method of euthanasia used by 23% of the establishments that euthanized dogs and 35% of the establishments that euthanized cats. All of these establishments used pre-medication, but the percentages of establishments that only used the intravenous route for administration of T-61 in dogs and cats were 45% and 7%, respectively. Further studies on the use of T-61, and the training and provision of counselling services for staff are recommended.

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)0.002
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.297
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.048 · 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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicVeterinary Pharmacology and AnesthesiaFrench-language works237,207