Minor procedural variations affect canine behavior during sociability assessments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing number of studies make claims about canine sociability in both applied and basic contexts. Yet, there is currently no standard for measuring sociability in dogs. The purpose of this two-part study was to determine whether procedural differences among canine sociability tests would affect dogs' behavior. In Experiment 1, we used a mixed-subjects design to assess whether experimenter position (standing, sitting, or kneeling) and presence of affection (petting and praise or none) affected leashed dogs' social behavior. Mixed-effect logistic regression modeling showed statistically significant main effects and interactions between posture and social contact. On average, dogs were more social when the experimenter knelt and provided social contact. However, there were individual differences in how dogs were affected by changes in procedure. In Experiment 2, we examined correspondence between leashed and unleashed dogs' social behaviors including time in proximity, following patterns, eye gaze, body orientation, jumping, and touching. Individual differences were examined by calculating a binomial mixed-effect logistic regression with condition (leashed, off-leash, following) and subject ID as fixed effects. Interactions were statistically significant for all behaviors, indicating that individual differences were present. The results have implications for the validity of sociability tests.
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".