The function of play bows in Canis lupus and its variants: a comparison of dingo (Canis lupus dingo), dog (Canis lupus familiaris) and wolf puppies (Canis lupus)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Play bows represent a common, highly stereotyped behaviour across the genus Canis . However, much of what we know is limited to the wolf and its domestic derivative, the domestic dog. Here we continue to look at the function of play bows among subspecies/variants of Canis lupus by including the dingo. Comparing dingoes to wolves and dogs may provide further insight into the impact of domestication on play behaviour. We analysed play bows in three-to-six month old dingo puppies and compared the results to previous studies of wolves and dogs. The function of play bows in dingoes appears consistent with those observed in dogs and wolf puppies. However, subtle intraspecific differences (such as the frequency and duration of play bows, and vocalizations during play) were apparent, and warrant further investigation in the genus Canis , as well as the Family Canidae more broadly.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".