Expression of Behavioural Traits in Goldendoodles and Labradoodles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As crossbred dogs gain in popularity, how they express inherited behaviour traits in comparison to their purebred constituent breeds is of interest. We investigated behaviours exhibited by crossbred dogs by focusing on the popular Goldendoodle and Labradoodle crossbreds and comparing them to their corresponding constituent breeds: Standard and Miniature Poodle, Golden Retriever or Labrador Retriever. The data for this study was provided by 5141 volunteer dog owners who filled out the Canine Behavioural Assessment and Research Questionnaire (C-BARQ) online survey. The survey results were used to analyse breed differences in fourteen representative behavioural trait scores: trainability, stranger-directed aggression, owner-directed aggression, dog-directed aggression, dog rivalry, dog-directed fear, stranger-directed fear, non-social fear, touch sensitivity, separation-related problems, excitability, attachment/attention-seeking behaviours, energy and chasing. As expected from a first-generation crossbred (F1), the crossbreds in our study tend to fall between the two constituent parent breeds with some exceptions. Our results suggest that the F1 Labradoodle differed significantly from one of the pure constituent breeds only in dog rivalry, whereas the F1 Goldendoodle behaviour varied from one or more pure constituent breeds in dog rivalry, dog-directed aggression, dog-directed fear, and stranger-directed fear. These results can help advise future dog owners on behavioural trends for particular crossbreds.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".