MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An approach to canine behavioural genetics employing guide dogs for the blind

2009· article· en· W2069456581 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Y. Takeuchi, Chie Hashizume, Sayaka Arata, Miho Inoue‐Murayama, T. Maki, Benjamin L. Hart, Y. Mori

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Genetics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCenter for Companion Animal Health, University of California, DavisJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsBiologyGeneticsDistractionGeneNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to attempt to find related variables of the canine genome with behavioural traits of dogs maintained and tested in a guide dog facility which provided a relatively uniform environment. The study involved 81 Labrador Retrievers that were being trained as guide dogs. Each dog was taken on walk-out sessions in which the trainer weekly recorded observations that were related to behavioural traits. The records were subjected to key-word analysis of 14 behaviour-related words. A factor analysis on the appearance rate of the 14 key words or phrases resulted in the extraction of six factors that accounted for 67.4% of the variance. Factor 1, referred to as aggressiveness, was significantly related to the success or failure of the dog in qualifying as a guide dog, and was also related to the variable of litter identification. Factor 2, referred to as distraction, was related to the variable of trainer. Factor 3, activity level, was related to the variable of sex, and was significantly related to the polymorphisms of c.471T>C in the solute carrier family 1 (neuronal/epithelial high affinity glutamate transporter) member 2 gene and c.216G>A in the catechol-O-methyltransferase gene. The involvement of polymorphisms c.471T>C and c.216G>A in behavioural patterns related to activity level is similar to comparable genetic studies in other mammalian species. These results contribute to a greater understanding of the role of these genes in behaviour.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal GeneticsSame topicHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesFrench-language works237,207