MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6931714785 · doi:10.5683/sp3/2gkexw

Factors Influencing Learning Task Failure in the Domestic Dog (Canis lupus familiaris)

2024· dataset· en· W6931714785 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueBorealis · 2024
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDiabetes and associated disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)CognitionLogistic regressionImpulsivityAnimal cognitionTask analysisVariation (astronomy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dog cognition research often requires dogs to meet initial screening criteria and complete preliminary behavioural tasks to proceed with subsequent experimental task phases. Reasons for the excluded dogs’ inability to meet the criteria, especially in the absence of major procedural errors, remain uncertain, whether stemming from cognitive differences, lack of motivation for rewards, or lack of specific experiences in dogs’ learning history. Our objective was to identify predictors of failure, shedding light on potential differences between the populations of dogs typically studied in cognitive research and the general dog population. A total of 150 pure-bred dogs performed a hand-touch learning task with their owners. The task consisted of different phases, each necessitating the dog to fulfill specific criteria before progressing to the subsequent phase. Inability to meet the specified task criteria led to failure. Binomial logistic regression was used to evaluate the probability of failure, incorporating dogs’ characteristics, training history, reward responsiveness, and impulsivity scores, along with factors specifying owners’ previous experiences with dogs as independent variables. Results indicated a higher likelihood of task failure associated with advancing age, lower food responsiveness scores, being a non-sporting dog, receiving non-food rewards in previous training, lack of familiarity with the hand-touch behaviour, along with the lack of dog training knowledge and a history of owning fewer dogs by the owner. Factors predicting task failure also varied between breed clades, with reward responsiveness being more influential in some clades, while training-related factors were more significant in others. This variation likely reflects breed-specific differences in learning profile and variations in responsiveness to external influences. Cognitive research may, therefore, be biased towards studying a certain group of dogs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBorealis→Same topicDiabetes and associated disorders→French-language works237,207→