Small animal deworming protocols, client education, and veterinarian perception of zoonotic parasites in western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Questionnaires were mailed to veterinarians in western Canada to determine dog and cat deworming protocols and the association between perceived zoonotic risk and perceived prevalence of endoparasites and deworming protocols. Of the responding veterinarians (545), 13% and 39% recommended deworming protocols consistent with established guidelines for puppies and kittens, respectively. Mixed animal practitioners and high-perceived prevalence of Toxocara cati were associated with increased appropriate kitten deworming (P < 0.01 and P = 0.04, respectively). High-perceived zoonotic concern of Toxocara canis was associated with increased appropriate puppy deworming (P = 0.01). Sixty-eight percent of veterinarians noted an established hospital deworming protocol, although only 78% followed the protocol. Forty-four percent of veterinarians stated they discussed with all clients the zoonotic risk of animal-derived endoparasites, whereas the remainder discussed it only under particular circumstances or not at all. Most small animal deworming protocols recommended in western Canada begin too late to inhibit endoparasite shedding. Increased educational efforts directed at veterinarians are warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".