[no title]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many veterinarians working in the field of companion animal medicine have to deal with requests for convenience euthanasia in their practices. As it is the case in other medical fields, veterinarians are trained to treat their patients. It is thus easy to understand that veterinarians consider convenience euthanasia as one of the most difficult ethical dilemmas they have to deal with in their practice. Regulatory boundaries concerning the practice of euthanasia are limited to the method use to induce the death of the animal but do not give any indication as to what should be the proper circumstances surrounding the request. To date, there are few articles on this matter and the perspective of veterinarians on the subject was rarely addressed. This article reports results obtained following a study conducted upon Québec's veterinarians on the topic of convenience euthanasia. The data was obtained via an online survey created by the research team to evaluate the perspective of veterinarians on the topic, how they perceived consequences of convenience euthanasia and what were the solutions they would take into consideration in order to help the profession on resolving their dilemma. The data collected sheds light on the existing duality between double allegiance regarding the duties emerging from the relation with the patient (animal) and the client (pet owner) veterinarian are facing in their daily practice. On one hand veterinarians recognized that 'convenience euthanasia' is contrary to animal welfare. On the other hand they also recognized the pet owner's right to ask for 'convenience euthanasia' when he can no longer care for its pet.(Translated by Dr. Rathwell-Deault).
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.262 | 0.093 |
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".