Girls have a more complex understanding of animal welfare than boys
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Our study hypothesized that gender influences how children and adolescents conceptualize animal welfare. Specifically, we expected that girls would express more complex and affectively nuanced definitions of animal welfare than boys, who would provide shorter and more concrete responses. The data were collected between July and September 2023 at Buin Zoo, Chile. A total of 206 children and adolescents aged 7-18 years participated voluntarily. Using a next-across-the-line method to minimize selection bias, every second eligible child was invited. The open-ended question posed was: “What is animal welfare for you?”. Responses were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and anonymized. Data collection took place before children entered the exhibits to avoid direct priming by specific animals. Two analyses were conducted: (1) Qualitative analysis (text mining and lexical network analysis) to identify gendered patterns in language use; (2) Quantitative analysis (coding responses into basic, intermediate, or advanced levels of animal welfare understanding, based on the Five Domains Model) followed by multinomial logistic regression to test associations between gender and conceptual level. Findings Qualitative Results: Girls used more diverse and affectively charged terms, forming richer lexical networks around concepts such as comfortable, stress, and calm. Their responses connected affective states with environmental and welfare conditions. Boys, in contrast, tended to produce narrower, more functional associations (e.g., place, recreation, to feed). Quantitative Results: Of the 206 responses, 130 explicitly addressed animal welfare concepts. Among these, 44.9% were intermediate, 37.8% basic, and 17.3% advanced. Logistic regression revealed that girls were four times more likely than boys to provide advanced definitions of animal welfare (OR = 4.09; 95% CI: 1.07–15.60; p = 0.03). The results indicate clear gender-based disparities in children’s conceptualizations of animal welfare. Girls not only demonstrated more advanced understanding but also expressed concepts in ways that integrated both cognitive and affective dimensions. Boys’ responses reflected simpler and more utilitarian views, often focused on concrete aspects of care. These findings suggest that: - Educational interventions should consider gender differences when designing animal welfare curricula. Programs incorporating affective and ethical dimensions may particularly help boys broaden their conceptual frameworks beyond functional care. - The use of zoo-based surveys offers ecologically valid insights, as children respond in a setting where animals are salient, though contextual influences should be acknowledged. - More than half of the sample still expressed only basic or intermediate knowledge, highlighting a gap between intuitive ideas of “care” and more comprehensive welfare frameworks such as the Five Domains Model.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».