Beloved Whiskers: Management Type, Care Practices and Connections to Welfare in Domestic Cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The quality of cat care practices depends in part on the type of management applied, which either positively or negatively impacts cat welfare. This study investigated whether the type of cat management (indoor vs. outdoor) was related to other cat care practices adopted by cat owners, associated with the quality of human-cat relationships and cat welfare. An online survey was distributed via social networks. Descriptive statistics, categorical Principal Component Analysis, Fisher's Exact test and Chi-square test in contingency table were applied. A total of 16,302 cat owners returned the survey. Most Brazilian owners reported indoor management of their cats; this was related to owners living in apartments, more frequent use of cat care practices, and more interactions with their pets. Outdoor management was related to cats living in houses or farms, sleeping outdoors or around the neighborhood, and owners had fewer interaction with their pets. In conclusion, owners practicing indoor management seemed to be closer to their cats than owners reporting outdoor management. However, obesity and owner-reported behavioral problems were associated with indoor management.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".