MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385270582 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0288081

Dog breeds and conformations in the UK in 2019: VetCompass canine demography and some consequent welfare implications

2023· article· en· W4385270582 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dan G. O’Neill, Kirsten M. McMillan, David B. Church, Dave C. Brodbelt

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGoddard Space Flight CenterKennel Club Charitable TrustDogs TrustAgria Djurförsäkring
KeywordsPurebredBreedCrossbreedVeterinary medicineDemographyAnimal welfareLabrador RetrieverMedicineAnimal healthBiologyAnimal scienceSurgeryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Growing concerns over health and welfare impacts from extreme phenotypes in dogs have created an urgent need for reliable demographic information on the national breed structures of dogs. METHODS: This study included all dogs under primary veterinary care in the UK during 2019 at practices participating in VetCompass. Demographic data on these dogs were analysed to report on the frequency of common breeds and also to report on conformation, bodyweight, sex and neuter associations with these breeds. RESULTS: The study included 2,237,105 dogs under UK veterinary care in 2019. Overall, 69.4% (n = 1,551,462) were classified as purebred, 6.7% (149,308) as designer-crossbred and 24.0% (536,335) as nondesigner-crossbred. Across 800 unique breed names, the most frequent breeds at any age were nondesigner-crossbred (n = 536,335, 24.0%), Labrador Retriever (154,222, 6.9%) and Jack Russell Terrier (101,294, 4.5%). Among 229,624 (10.3%) dogs aged under one year, the most frequent breeds were nondesigner-crossbred (n = 45,995, 20.0%), French Bulldog (16,036, 7.0%) and Cockapoo (14,321, 6.2%). Overall, based on breed characteristics, 17.6% (395,739) were classified as brachycephalic, 43.1% (969,403) as mesaticephalic and 8.3% (186,320) as dolichocephalic. Of 1,551,336 dogs that were classifiable based on breed, 52.6% (815,673) were chondrodystrophic. Of 1,462,925 dogs that were classifiable, there were 54.6% (n = 798,426) short haired, 32.6% (476,883) medium haired and 12.8% (186,934) long haired. Of 1,547,653 dogs that were classifiable for ear carriage, 24.5% (n = 379,581) were erect, 28.1% (434,273) were semi-erect, 19.7% (305,475) were v-shaped drop and 27.7% (428,324) were pendulous. Overall, there was a 1.09:1.00 ratio of male (n = 1,163,512; 52.2%) to female dogs (n = 1,067,552; 47.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Health and welfare issues linked to popular breeds with extreme phenotypes suggest that there is much work to do to help owners to make more welfare-friendly decisions when choosing which type of dog to own.

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)0.000
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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations52
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesFrench-language works237,207