Assessing the social organization of multi-dog households: dog behaviour, hormones, personality, and demographics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Domestic dogs and grey wolves, although related species, display differences in social organization. As has been shown in captive vs. free-living wolves, context differences affecting social organization are likely to exist in domestic dogs. Social status has been investigated in free-ranging domestic dogs, among dogs living in kennel environments, and among pet dogs at a day-care facility, but not among cohabiting pet dogs. This study examines whether three methods (a toy possession test (TPT), behavioural characteristics, and owner-reported dominance) for evaluating dominance among dogs living in multi-dog homes yield convergent results. There were no significant relationships among the outcomes of the three methods, indicating they are likely measuring different constructs. Higher TPT scores were related to higher baseline testosterone, an interaction between baseline cortisol and testosterone characterized by low cortisol/high testosterone levels, relative age, Extraversion and Motivation. Behaviours previously associated with dominance were not consistent in their relationships with dog demographics (sex, age), hormones, and personality traits, as measured by the Monash Canine Personality Questionnaire-Revised (MCPQ-R). Owner-reported dominant dogs had higher relative Motivation and Training Focus and lower Amicability. Cohabiting pet dog social organization is probably different from that found in other dog groups, perhaps due to owner behaviour. Assumptions derived from wolf and feral dog studies about the concept of dominance must be evaluated carefully before being accepted as valid for pet 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".