MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239938325 · doi:10.31235/osf.io/s9k4y

Human-dog relationships during COVID-19 pandemic; booming dog adoption during social isolation

2020· preprint· en· W4239938325 on OpenAlexaff
Liat Morgan, Alexandra Protopopova, Rune Isak Dupont Birkler, Beata Itin‐Shwartz, Gila A. Sutton, alexandra gamliel, Boris I. Yakobson, Tal Raz

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMinistry of Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentUniversities Federation for Animal Welfare
KeywordsPandemicAbandonment (legal)Social isolationCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Isolation (microbiology)WelfarePerceptionAnimal welfareQuality of life (healthcare)PsychologyPolitical scienceMedicineBiologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recent COVID-19 pandemic led to uncertainty and severe health and economic concerns, which may have impacted human-dog relationships. Our objectives were to investigate how people perceived and acted during the COVID-19 pandemic social isolation, in regards to dog adoption and abandonment; and to examine the bidirectional relationships between dog owners’ well-being to that of their dogs. Overall, according to our analysis, the stricter the social isolation became during the pandemic, the interest in dog adoption as well as adoption rate increased significantly, while abandonment did not change. Moreover, there was a clear association between individuals’ impaired quality of life and their perceptions of poorer life quality of their dogs as well as the development of new behavioral problems. These findings suggest potential benefits for human-dog relationship during the COVID-19 pandemic, in compliance with the One Welfare approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesFrench-language works237,207