Best in Show: Public Perceptions of Different Dog Breeds as Service Dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent research has shed light on the amount of discrimination faced by those who require service dogs ( Mills, 2017 ). While most of the research thus far on discrimination against those who use service dogs has pertained to the appearance of the disabled individual, very little has assessed the appearance of the dog in the amount of discrimination an individual faces. The current study aimed to examine the ways in which the breed of dog impacts the way they are viewed as Service Animals. Participants each looked at one picture of a dog, either a Pomeranian, a Pit Bull type dog, or a Labrador Retriever. They then answered a series of five questions about the animals’ legitimacy as a Service Animal. Pomeranians were rated significantly lower on perceived legitimacy than both Labrador Retrievers and Pit Bull type dogs. Additionally, participants rated themselves as the least comfortable around Pit Bull type dogs, regardless of their perceived legitimacy. These findings continue to shed light on the ways that individuals with service dogs are perceived and contributes to the larger body of research surrounding those who are discriminated against for their disability.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".