An Examination of the Possible Physical Activity and Short-Term Health Benefits Associated With Dog Walking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine whether dog walking is beneficial for dog owners’ health by providing sufficient physical activity for health benefits and improving their psychological health immediately after dog walking. The sample was comprised of 61 dog walkers who wore an accelerometer for one week on all of their dog walks and completed seven visual analogue scales assessing their psychological health before and after each of their dog walks. Slightly more than half of the time spent dog walking was at the moderate- to vigorous-intensity level recommended for health benefits. Furthermore, through dog walking alone, approximately two in five dog walkers met Canada’s 150-minute physical activity guideline for health benefits. Analyses comparing dog walkers’ psychological health before and after their dog walks revealed an improvement on six out of seven psychological health measures. Dog walkers felt less stressed after walking their dog and experienced an increase in their energy, self-esteem, social life satisfaction and overall life satisfaction as well as a more positive mood. Taken together, these findings provide objective evidence that dog walking is a viable means of attaining the physical activity needed for health benefits and highlight the need to further explore the short-term health benefits of dog walking.
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".