Aetiology of separation‐related behaviour in domestic dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A longitudinal study of seven litters of labrador retrievers and five litters of border collies from eight weeks to 18 months of age indicated that the majority showed some degree of potentially undesirable behaviour when separated from their owners. Its incidence was particularly high in the labrador retrievers, of which 13 of 23 showed separation-related behaviour for more than a month. Socially diverse environments experienced between six and 12 months of age were associated with a subsequent absence of separation-related behaviour. In a questionnaire survey of dog owners, separation-related behaviour was reported in 27 of 94 dogs, and a further 20 had shown the behaviour in the past. Male dogs were more likely to express separation-related behaviour currently, and females were more likely never to have displayed it. The prevalence of the behaviour was unaffected by whether the dog was pedigree or mixed breed, or whether it had been obtained from a breeder or from a rescue organisation. Combining the results of the two studies, the owners of only six of 75 dogs showing separation-related behaviour had sought assistance, and only two of the owners had sought help from veterinary surgeons.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".