Owner observations regarding cat scratching behavior: an internet-based survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectivesThis study was performed to examine aspects of the cat, environment and scratching post that might influence scratching behavior, in an effort to determine how inappropriate scratching behavior might be refocused on acceptable targets.MethodsAn internet survey, posted on several public websites, gathered details about scratching behavior, as described by owners in their home environments, from 4331 respondents over a 4 month period. Responses from 39 different countries were analyzed, mostly from the USA, Canada and the UK.ResultsOwners offered traditionally recommended scratching substrates including rope, cardboard, carpet and wood. Rope was most frequently used when offered, although carpet was offered most commonly. Most owners provided at least one scratching post; cats scratched the preferred substrate more often when the post was a simple upright type or a cat tree with two or more levels and at least 3 ft high. Narrower posts (base width ⩽3 ft) were used more often than wider posts (base width ⩾5 ft). Intact or neutered cats (males and females) were as likely to scratch inappropriately, and inappropriate scratching decreased with age. Geriatric cats between the ages of 10 and 14 years preferred carpet substrate most frequently; all other ages preferred rope first. Inappropriate scratching decreased as the different types/styles of posts increased in the home. Inappropriate scratching did not increase if the number of cats or dogs increased in the household. Declawed cats were preventatively declawed most often to prevent household item destruction.Conclusions and relevanceAlthough cats can have individual preferences, our data provide a starting point for veterinarians recommending scratching posts to clients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.009 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".