Public Perceptions of Dangerous Dogs and Dog Risk
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report presents a background literature survey and the results of research undertaken to gain insights into public perceptions of dangerous dogs and dog risk in the UK. The project used a public questionnaire distributed primarily via closed social media groups and analysed the responses from 1,535 UK participants. Most of the questionnaire respondents (88.6%) were current dog owners. Of these, around a quarter were first-time dog owners and one fifth of all respondents had experience of bull breeds. A clear majority (87.1%) of respondents said that dogs liked them and that they were ‘good with dogs’. Of particular interest to the team were questions of where the public get their information about dog behaviour and dog risk, what is understood as ‘dangerous’ dog behaviour, people’s understanding of canine body language, and situational awareness of bite risk. The aim of this research is to contribute to finding an alternative strategy to breed specific legislation which protects the public and 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 it