Backyard chickens - A cross-sectional survey of current and prospective backyard chicken owners in Ontario (2019-2021).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Chickens are a natural reservoir for zoonotic pathogens. Humans and pets may be at increased risk of illness due to contact with poultry, their eggs, and their environment. We aimed to identify any knowledge, attitude, or practice gaps among current and prospective backyard chicken owners. Animal: Backyard chickens. Procedure: Responses were collected through an anonymous online survey from December 2019 to March 2021. Respondents were asked questions regarding household demographics, previous, current, or future backyard chickens, primary reasons for having or wanting backyard chickens, and about animal handling practices and zoonotic disease awareness. Results: There were 279 respondents from Ontario (85.9%). Reported reasons for having or wanting backyard chickens included for eggs (94.0%), as pets (49.6%), and as a hobby (62.4%). Interestingly, 8.1% wanted chickens for their meat. Just over 1/5 (21.1%) of those with current or recent flocks allowed the birds to come into their house. Just over 7% incorrectly indicated rabies virus could be transmitted by backyard chickens. Conclusions: Reasons for having or wanting backyard chickens included food and companionship. Many owners reported allowing the chickens entry into their homes, highlighting increased opportunities for zoonotic pathogen transmission. There were misconceptions regarding pathogens transmissible by chickens.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".