MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2597779060 · doi:10.1017/s0962728600028499

The influence of toys on the behaviour and welfare of kennelled dogs

2004· article· en· W2597779060 on OpenAlexfundno aff
DL Wells

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Welfare · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDogs TrustQueen's UniversityQueen's University Belfast
KeywordsHabituationSittingPet therapyAnimal-assisted therapyHUBzeroAnimal welfarePsychologyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationAudiologyBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study explored the influence of five toys (squeaky ball, non-squeaky ball, Nylabone chew, tug rope and Boomer ball) on the behaviour of 32 adult dogs housed in a rescue shelter. The dogs were exposed to each toy separately for six days, with an intervening period of one day between toys. The dogs' location in their kennels (front or back), activity (moving, standing, sitting or resting) and vocalisation (barking, quiet or other) were recorded over 4 h at 10 min intervals on Days 1, 3 and 5 during a control condition (no toy present) and during five experimental (toy) conditions. Whether or not the dogs were observed playing with the toys during the experimental conditions was also recorded. The dogs spent relatively little (<8%) of the overall observation time playing with the toys. The toys elicited varying degrees of interest, with dogs showing a preference for the Nylabone chew over the other toys. The dogs' interest in the toys waned over time, but the speed of habituation to the Nylabone chew was slower than to any of the other toys. The dogs' activity was significantly related to toy condition: dogs spent more time moving and less time standing during the Nylabone chew, squeaky ball and non-squeaky ball conditions than during any of the other conditions. It is suggested that the welfare of kennelled dogs may be slightly enhanced by the addition of suitable toys to their kennels. It is advised, however, that toys are rotated to encourage exploration and reduce habituation. The provision of other forms of environmental enrichment is also recommended.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations65
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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