Incidence and impact of dog attacks on guide dogs in the UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a retrospective survey, researchers identified 100 incidents of attacks on guide dogs by other dogs. These were reviewed in order to determine the number, severity and impact on the handler and dog, and the characteristics of the aggressors and victims. During the study period there were more than three attacks reported each month, with 61 per cent of the attacks being upon dogs that were in harness and working with an owner or trainer. The majority of the dogs that were attacked were male (62 per cent), and the breeds that were over-represented (relative to their prevalence in the general guide dog population) were the labrador and the golden retriever x flat-coated retriever crossbreed. Most of the attacks occurred in public places between 09.00 and 15.00 and the majority (61 per cent) of the attacking dogs were off the lead at the time of the attack. Thirty-eight per cent of the attacking dogs were of bull breeds, which were over-represented among attackers compared with the proportion of this breed type in the general dog population. Veterinary attention was sought after 41 per cent of the attacks, and in 19 per cent of instances there was injury to the handler or to a member of the public. The attacks were reported to have affected the working performance and behaviour of the victim dog in 45 per cent of the instances, and two dogs had to be subsequently withdrawn from working as guide dogs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".