Navigating challenges in applied animal behaviour and welfare research: A focus group study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Academics in applied animal behaviour and welfare science may face challenges while working within the constraints imposed by institutional and regulatory frameworks. However, to our knowledge, no studies have attempted to describe the nature of these difficulties and whether there are regional differences. This database contains the supplementary materials of a focus group study with 47 delegates attending the 56th Congress of the International Society of Applied Ethology (ISAE) held in Tallinn, Estonia, in August 2023. Participants represented 33 countries covering five continents. Using a semi-structured discussion guide, participants were encouraged to discuss their challenges, proposed solutions to the identified challenges, and the role international societies could play in overcoming some of these challenges. All focus group discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed and subjected to thematic analyses. Three main themes were identified: (1) the discipline of animal behaviour and welfare, (2) conducting and sharing research, and (3) researcher welfare and networking. Participants described numerous barriers hindering their research process, originating from within their academic institutions, local governments, and journal guidelines but also arising from prejudice and other personal challenges. Many of the challenges identified were shared among all participants, regardless of region, but specific socio-demographic groups more strongly voiced some issues. While solutions were difficult to identify, many participants communicated their willingness to collaborate as a first step to striving for solutions to the identified challenges.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".