A Survey of the Professional Characteristics and Views of Dog Trainers in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dog training is an unregulated profession in Canada without licensing or standardized practices, yet professional dog trainers greatly influence how guardians interact with their dogs and, by extension, dog welfare. We conducted an online survey to characterize the demographics, qualifications, services, methods, and views of dog trainers in Canada. Of the 706 valid respondents, most (65%) had completed at least one structured dog training program, while 33% were self-educated. Respondents held qualifications from 138 training programs and 39 exam-based certifications that differed in their curriculum, duration, and scope. We identified over 80 different themes or terms that trainers use to describe their practices, with the most frequent relating to reward-based methods. Most respondents also indicated that they would be unlikely to use aversive collars. These findings suggest that reward-based methods are likely the most prevalent in Canada. Two-thirds (62%) supported some regulation of dog training. The quantity and variety of training programs, certifications, and terminology utilized by dog trainers could present challenges for dog guardians in selecting trainers, and/or result in the use of harmful training methods. These findings can inform further development of best practices, educational programs, and advocacy to advance the use of humane training methods.
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".