Cat owners’ perceptions of multimodal environmental modification advice for obstructive feline idiopathic cystitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectivesThe primary goal of this survey was to gain insight into cat owners' perspectives with respect to multimodal environmental modification (MEMO) advice for obstructive feline idiopathic cystitis (O-FIC). The secondary goal was to describe the environmental management practices of cat owners.MethodsAn online survey of clients whose cats were managed medically for presumed O-FIC was completed.ResultsA total of 167 responses met the inclusion criteria. The proportions of cat owners receiving advice for MEMO varied with each aspect of environmental enrichment: diet (94%), water intake (86.2%), litter box (56.9%), private physical space (43.7%), social interaction (25.1%) and natural behavior (26.3%). For all these environmental enrichment categories, clients reported high compliance rates (88.9-97.6%), and veterinarians were the main source of advice. Cat owners indicated similar median satisfaction scores (with the thoroughness of advice), in the range of 77-82, for all aspects of environmental enrichment. Overall, respondents also reported encountering minimal challenges in terms of implementing MEMO and described their current management practices.Conclusions and relevanceCat owners report that certain aspects of MEMO are emphasized for O-FIC, such as diet and water intake. Recommendations for litter box management, private physical space, social interaction and natural behavior are aspects of environmental enrichment that are not as commonly provided to cat owners. If given MEMO recommendations, cat owners readily complied. Veterinarians were the main source of MEMO advice, suggesting that they are the key to providing recommendations pertaining to all aspects of environmental enrichment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".