How Can the Ethological Study of Dog-Human Companionship Inform Social Robotics?
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
This chapter utilises the human-dog relationship as an example of the possible ways to examine human-animal relationships in general and as a model of a possible future human-robot relationship, assuming some functional convergence between social robots and dogs in relation to humans. The behavioural interaction between humans and dogs may provide important insights for ethological research on heterospecific social behaviour. The studies on dog-human relationships suggest that dogs are better at adjusting their interactions to the owners' demands than other companion animals, and on the basis of questionnaire studies, dogs interact with their owners in ways, which result in higher levels of attachment. In recent years several so called companion robots have been developed, many of which capitalize on the human-pet relationship. Recently different comparative studies were conducted investigating the dog-human and robot-human interactions using AIBO and PLEO as robotic companions. Keywords:AIBO; dog-human relationships; ethological research; PLEO; social robots
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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