Understanding kitten fostering and socialisation practices using mixed methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many companion kittens entering shelters are fostered by volunteer community members during the sensitive period for socialisation (~2 to 9 weeks of age) when early experiences are critical to behavioural development. Using a mixed-method survey, we explored current fostering practices relevant to kitten behavioural development and welfare. Foster caretaker participants (n = 487) described their fostering practices and reported providing kittens with a majority of recommended socialisation experiences, such as handling and exposure to various toys and exploratory items. In open-ended text responses, foster caretakers described how they adapted socialisation practices for fearful kittens and the supports and challenges they perceived to impact their ability to properly socialise kittens. Some non-recommended techniques (e.g. flooding) were reported for socialising fearful kittens, with a decreased odds of reporting non-recommended techniques for participants with a higher level of agreeableness personality trait and an increased odds of reporting if fostering practices had been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Foster caretakers reported feeling supported through shelter-supplied resources, personal knowledge, external support, and having access to socialisation opportunities; however, faced personal (e.g. time constraints), shelter-specific (e.g. lack of shelter support), and kitten-specific challenges (e.g. kitten illness). This study highlights the perspectives of foster caretakers as related to optimal socialisation, behavioural development, and welfare. To identify opportunities for improvement it is important to investigate the socialisation guidelines provided to foster caretakers, with the ultimate goal of enhancing kitten behavioural development for improved welfare, long-term adoption, and caretaker satisfaction.
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 | 0.022 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".