Owner-Reported Attachment and Behavior Characteristics of New Guinea Singing Dogs Living as Companion Animals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Domestic dogs are terrific companions in a variety of contexts. However, not all dogs have followed the same trajectory regarding domestication. In fact, little is known about how some dogs, including New Guinea singing dogs (NGSDs), fare as companion animals. The majority of NGSDs in the United States and Canada live as companion animals, yet observational studies of NGSDs have been limited to those living in zoos and in the wild. To learn more about NGSDs kept as companion animals, we compared housing and husbandry practices for NGSDs (n = 55) with those of dogs belonging to five primitive Fédération Cynologique Internationale (FCI) subgroups (n = 1,101). We also compared behavioral traits of NGSDs and dogs belonging to the FCI subgroups using the Canine Behavioral Assessment and Research Questionnaire (C-BARQ), and their relationships with their owners using the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale (LAPS). NGSDs differed from dogs belonging to some FCI subgroups on several C-BARQ measures. For instance, NGSDs showed greater fear than dogs in some subgroups and were more likely to urinate on objects than dogs in all subgroups. The latter finding might explain why a higher percentage of NGSDs than primitive breed dogs were housed outdoors. Nonetheless, NGSD owners scored just as highly on the LAPS as owners of other primitive dogs. Our findings suggest that NGSD owners may adapt their expectations and husbandry strategies to account for some of the behavioral differences between NGSDs and other dogs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".