The Creative Canine: Investigating the concept of creativity in dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) using citizen science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is no shortage of anecdotal evidence that domestic dogs ( Canis lupus familiaris ) can solve problems in individual or creative ways. Whether it is figuring out a new way to knock over the trash can or combining puppy-dog eyes with a whine for some table scraps, dogs approach their world in many ways. In recent years, dogs have been studied for a number of cognitive functions but their ability to demonstrate creative behaviors has not been empirically studied. The present study extends training of the create behavior, as previously trained in dolphins, to dogs. The criteria of the create behavior required the dog to present a behavior that had yet to be performed in the session, therefore, the only incorrect response was a repeated behavior. Mastery of the create command was coded on three components: repetition, energy, and novelty. Possible implications of this research will be discussed. This study adds to the literature on dog cognition and supports the utilization of citizen science for canine cognition research.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".