Investigation into owner-reported differences between dogs born in versus imported into Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over 1 million dogs are imported into the United States and roughly 340,000 dogs into the United Kingdom yearly. Although the official number of dogs arriving to Canada is currently unknown, local animal professionals estimate that thousands of dogs are imported into Canada each year. Dog importation may be increasing globally while regulation and surveillance are still limited, resulting in concerns for the health and welfare of imported dogs. To date, few studies have investigated how the source location of dogs influences the owner-dog relationship. The current report presents two independent studies that were conducted to assess whether owners of imported dogs reported a poorer owner-dog relationships compared to owners of Canadian-born dogs. In both studies, an online survey was distributed to dog owners (Study 1: n = 803; Study 2: n = 878) in British Columbia, Canada, containing questions on various aspects of the owner-dog relationship. The first study included questions from the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale, Canine Behavioral Assessment and Research Questionnaire, Human-Animal Bond questionnaire, Monash Dog Owner Relationship Scale, and constructed questions about training methods, expectations, and health. The second study was comprised of original questions assessing difficult behaviour, training practices, health, attachment, and perceived level of burden of owning a dog. Both studies found no evidence of a poorer owner-dog relationship in non-Canadian-sourced dogs. In fact, owners of Canadian-sourced dogs used harsh training methods more frequently and had higher expectations for their dog. While no signs of poorer owner-dog relationship in non-Canadian-sourced dogs were found, future research should continue the investigation of age, health, and backgrounds of incoming 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 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".