Bibliographic record
Abstract
Domestic dogs are increasingly used in detection of species that are difficult to locate or are relatively low in abundance due to conservation related issues. In conjunction with the University of Alberta, Dr. Shannon Digweed, and Dr. Randal Arsenault have been exploring various aspects of incorporating scent dogs into conservation and behavioural research programs. This project will focus specifically on signal detection of live versus dead scent training. Research has suggested that there is a distinct olfactory difference between training scent dogs on ‘live hides’ versus ‘dead hides’ (of North American red squirrels). As the majority of work with our dog group has been scent training on dead hides we are interested in investigating the detection abilities of dogs that have only been trained on dead versus those that have only been trained on live. Additionally, this project has an applied aspect to it. The student and trainers will also be using data collected to promote a conservation scent detection business. The goal of this project is to assist the trainers with appropriate procedures for learning scent detection. Discipline: Psychology Faculty Mentor: Dr. Shannon Digweed
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".