The influence of the time of day on the working qualities of service dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: comparison of working capacity of service dogs of different breeds depending on their use at different times of the day. Materials and methods. The studies were carried out on service dogs (n=41) of various breeds: German (18 heads) and Belgian (Malinois) (7 heads) shepherd dogs, Labrador (13 heads), Spaniel (3 heads), used in the following areas: search for explosives and explosive devices, the search for narcotic drugs and substances and the general search profile. The age of the dogs is from 3 to 9 years. Feeding of the entire livestock was carried out with dry complete feed. The effectiveness of the use of service dogs depending on the breed, sex and time of day has been studied. The day was divided into morning - from 6.00 to 12.00, afternoon - from 12.00 to 18.00, evening - from 18.00 to 24.00 and night - from 24.00 to 6.00. Data on the working qualities of dogs in each of the areas are taken from the reporting documents of the "Acts on the use of service dogs" for 2019. Results. It was found that German Shepherds worked better in the search for explosives in the morning, afternoon and evening - from 0.6 to 0.83% of successful trips, Labradors stood out at night - 1.77%. In the other direction - the search for narcotic substances in the morning, the best result was shown by spaniels - 33.3% of successful trips, in the daytime and at night - by Belgian shepherds - 38.5% and 33.35%, respectively. In the evening – German Shepherds - 44.4%. Comparison of general detective dogs showed no significant differences between breeds. It should be noted that regardless of the breed and direction of application, bitches worked better at night.
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 | 0.001 | 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".