“Here, Kitty, Kitty.” Community Perceptions of Free-Roaming Cats: A Northern Canadian Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Free-roaming domestic cats (Felis catus) create controversy, due to their tendency to invade neighbors’ gardens, hunt wildlife, and create disturbances. Municipal governments are often under pressure to address concerns regarding free-roaming cats. As approximately 28% of the 8.8 million cats owned in Canada free-roam (are allowed outside unsupervised and unconstrained), understanding owner rationales for letting the cat out is important for officials tasked with addressing public concerns. In 2019, we studied attitudes toward cats within a north-central British Columbia, Canada, city. The rationales cat owners use to justify free-roaming, as well as their perceptions about the risks and benefits of this decision are discussed. While a majority of non–cat owners (and former owners) were concerned about free-roaming cats, current cat owners were not. While our research suggests that many cat owners are conflicted about letting their cats out, those so doing are committed despite recognizing the risks to their cat, wildlife, and relationships with their neighbors. This suggests that education is likely ineffective. Our research suggests that owners are unlikely to be motivated by poorly enforced bylaws or conservation concerns. Instead, outreach that focuses upon the risk to free-roaming cats might be more persuasive. In conjunction with the survey, we also conducted a limited field trial of the BirdsbeSafe cat collars to determine their effectiveness in limiting predation on birds. While a small sample was obtained, our results demonstrate that the collars do limit bird predation by owned cats.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 teacher head, 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".