MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Can I touch you? A pilot study comparing consensual and non-consensual human-dog touch interactions

2025· article· en· W4407625056 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 · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersFondation Nestlé
KeywordsHUBzeroAnimal-assisted therapyPet therapyPsychologyTherapeutic touchAnimal welfareMulti-touchCommunicationHuman–computer interactionComputer scienceMedicineBiologyEcologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Choice and consent are critical welfare elements, especially in interactions between humans and animals. Dogs incorporated in therapeutic settings (therapy dogs) may encounter human touch interactions where they have limited control over their circumstances. The present study examined how forced and free-choice touch treatments during interaction with humans influenced the behaviour of therapy dogs and hypothesized that therapy dogs would display a higher frequency of stress-related behaviours during forced in comparison to free-choice touch treatment. The study involved 18 certified therapy dogs with 44 human participants. Each human interacted individually with up to four therapy dogs in forced and free-choice touch treatments for 3 min. During forced touch treatments, dogs were held on a leash by their owners while participants continuously touched the dog, but during free-choice touch treatments dogs roamed freely in a pen and participants were directed to touch them only if they approached within arm’s reach. Treatments were videoed for retrospective behavioural coding. A GLIMMIX for repeated measures tested the effect of treatment on dog behaviours. During forced touch there was a higher frequency of ear back behaviour (p = .0115) compared to free-choice touch treatment. Sniffing behaviour (p < .0001) and avoidance of the participants (p < .0001) occurred more frequently during free-choice touch compared to forced touch treatments. Dogs spent 77.9 % of their time within reach of the participants during free-choice touch treatments. Male dogs demonstrated a higher frequency of avoidance of participants (p = .0031) and interaction with owners (p = .0352) than female dogs, regardless of treatment. The findings revealed subtle behavioural differences in therapy dogs between forced and free-choice touch treatments with humans, highlighting the importance of incorporating choice and agency in human-dog interactions within therapy programs to enhance dog welfare. • Therapy dogs showed more frequent ear back behaviour during forced touch treatments. • Therapy dogs remained mostly within human reach when given the option to avoid interactions voluntarily. • Choice and agency are important factors in improving therapy dogs' welfare during human-dog interactions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.344 · 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