MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155123786 · doi:10.14288/1.0092743

Management and rehabilitation of inter-dog aggression in animal shelters

2010· article· en· W2155123786 on OpenAlexaff
Jane S. Orihel

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAggressionRehabilitationPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineSocial psychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Identification and treatment of inter-dog aggression is important so that animal shelters can re-home animals safely and reduce long-term confinement and euthanasia rates. This thesis describes 1) a survey study which identified current management of aggressive dogs in shelters and explored the feasibility of implementing rehabilitation for inter-dog aggression, and 2) an experimental study of the effectiveness of a rehabilitation program for reducing inter-dog aggression in shelter dogs. Of the 43 shelters that responded to the questionnaire, most admitted aggressive dogs, reported inter-dog aggression as a common problem, and estimated that less than 10% of adopted dogs are returned for inter-dog aggression. Management of aggressive dogs included humane destruction and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation methods were diverse, and respondents expressed varied levels of confidence over the success of their programs. Factors preventing rehabilitation included lack of time and financial constraints, but shelters indicated an interest in rehabilitation if a practical, scientifically validated program were available. In the experimental study, sixteen shelter dogs that showed inter-dog aggression in a behaviour test received a 10-day treatment of daily rehabilitation (rehabilitation group, n = 9) or daily release into an outdoor enclosure (control group, n = 7). Most rehabilitation dogs showed a decline in aggression scores when tested on the day after the last treatment, compared with their pre-treatment scores. Control dogs showed either an increase or no change in aggression scores. The change in aggression scores differed significantly between the groups (U= 8.5, p < 0.01), but the difference was no longer significant when a reduced sample of dogs was tested one week after rehabilitation ended (Day 18). This study provides evidence of short-term reduction of aggression through a rehabilitation program, but further work is needed on effective and practical ways of maintaining the behavioural change.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesFrench-language works237,207