A History of Dogs as Subjects in North American Experimental Psychological Research
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The modern resurgence in psychological experiments involving dogs follows a long and rich tradition of using dogs as experimental subjects in psychology. Except for a few exceptions (e.g., Pavlov, and Scott and Fuller), much of this research is often overlooked. We trace the history of dogs as experimental psychological subjects: The work of Darwin and Pavlov sets the stage for our focus on research emanating from North American laboratories. We end our review with the advent of the modern renaissance of dog research. This account tracks the history of psychology as a science, providing insight into psychological processes and theoretical corollaries of these processes generally, and shedding light on the behavior of dogs specifically. A rediscovery of this literature can only aid research being conducted today, including rejuvenating old questions, suggesting new ones, and highlighting useful methods for current issues. We hope through this endeavor that those working with dogs will see themselves as part of this rich tradition and that a historical perspective will help integrate dog research into a field greater than the sum of its parts.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it