MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3205309385 · doi:10.1002/pan3.10269

Popular press portrayal of issues surrounding free‐roaming domestic cats <i>Felis catus</i>

2021· article· en· W3205309385 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth A. Gow, Joseph B. Burant, Alex O. Sutton, Nikole E. Freeman, Elora R. M. Grahame, Matthew Fuirst, Marjorie C. Sorensen, Samantha M. Knight, Hannah E. Clyde, Nathaniel J. Quarrell, Alana Wilcox, Roxan Chicalo, Stephen G. Van Drunen, David S. Shiffman

Bibliographic record

VenuePeople and Nature · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsNature Conservancy of CanadaUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimal welfareWelfareStakeholderWildlifePublic relationsPolitical scienceSocioeconomicsSociologyLawEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Domestic cats Felis catus have a complex and contentious history. They fill multiple societal roles (e.g. as pest controllers and companion animals), which has led to a variety of animal welfare, conservation, and human health concerns. Popular press articles play an important role in how people learn about key issues surrounding cats, but they may present some issues more frequently than other issues. We conducted a global media content analysis of 796 articles in the English‐language media from 1990 to 2018 on issues related to free‐roaming cats, such as their environmental impacts, the threats and welfare issues cats face, and how they are managed. We aimed to determine whether non‐experts learning about the issues around free‐roaming cats exclusively from the popular press would be exposed to multiple stakeholder views or opinions. Over 95% of articles analysed were from North America. Most of the people interviewed in the popular press were from non‐governmental organizations, mainly from cat welfare or cat rights groups (which are often focused on only one side of the issue). Researchers, shelter organizations, veterinarians, and groups that have different opinions than cat rights or welfare organizations on how to resolve issues surrounding free‐roaming cats were rarely interviewed by the popular press. Most articles focused on cat welfare issues and the management strategies of euthanasia or trap–neuter–release (TNR), whereas less than one‐third of the articles acknowledged that cats have any impact on wildlife or the broader environment. We found that the popular press often presented an oversimplified picture of issues related to free‐roaming cats and provided unbalanced coverage. We also show evidence of framing by the popular press, including mainly presenting the viewpoints and perspectives from animal welfare and rights groups, focusing on TNR or euthanasia as the only viable cat management strategies when many alternatives exist and often have greater support from experts, and discussing the impacts of cats on birds and small mammals but not reptiles or amphibians. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeople and NatureSame topicHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesFrench-language works237,207