MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Compliance or confusion? The usefulness of blindfolding horses as a handling technique

2024· article· en· W4391364109 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Animal Behaviour Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Equine Medical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfusionPsychologyPet therapyObstacleAudiologySimulationAeronauticsMedicineSocial psychologyPhysical therapyApplied psychologyComputer scienceAnimal welfareEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Blindfolds have commonly been suggested to make horses more tractable in emergency or high-stress situations such as barn fire evacuations or trailer loading. However, little research has been done on the veracity of this claim. Two studies were conducted to examine the impact of blindfolds on ease of handling. In Study 1, 33 riding lesson horses were led from a familiar stall both blindfolded and unblindfolded. In Study 2, 27 of these horses were then led through an obstacle course both blindfolded and unblindfolded that required them to weave through cones, back up through a chute, walk across a tarp and pass through a gate made of pool noodles that brushed their flanks. For both studies, time taken to complete each phase of the test (Study 1: haltering, blindfolding, exiting stall; Study 2: each of the four obstacles) was recorded, as well as heart rate difference from baseline, lead rope pressure and frequency of avoidant or resistant behaviours. Results were analyzed using a mixed model with post-hoc Tukey-Kramer comparisons to investigate the relationship between variables. Generally, blindfolded horses required more time and greater lead rope pressure for handling and displayed higher frequencies of avoidant (p < 0.05) and active refusal behaviour (p < 0.04) in Study 1 and for the cones and backing up obstacles in Study 2. Conversely, when navigating the visually frightening “gate” obstacle in Study 2, blindfolded horses required less time (p = 0.0053) and lead rope pressure (p = 0.0049) and demonstrated fewer avoidant (p < 0.0001) or refusal behaviours (p = 0.0009) than unblindfolded horses. Blindfolded horses showed a greater heart rate increase from baseline while being led in Study 1 (p = 0.0226). Blindfolding did not have an effect on heart rate in Study 2 (p = 0.1672), but horses demonstrated reduced heart rate difference from baseline during their second attempt at the obstacle course regardless of blindfolding status (p < 0.0001). These findings suggest that blindfolding may be a beneficial tool when navigating visually frightening stimuli and time is not a concern. However, in emergency scenarios such as barn fire evacuations, blindfolding is likely to increase lead time and difficulty of handling, which could negatively impact the success of a rescue and put human and animal lives at risk. Future research is required to test the efficacy of blindfolds in a more realistically simulated emergency environment.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.684

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.235
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it