ArticleJournal of animal science2024
Testing and characterization of herding dogs' behaviors.
Article in Journal of animal science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dog Breeds for the Future: Theoretical Assessment of Strategies for Enhancing the Behavioural Reliability of Existing Dog Breeds, or Developing New Ideal Urban Companion Dogs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Review
- Attention and improvement: social learning reveals two behavioural dimensions behind dog-human interactions.Evolutionary human sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Breeding for phenotype in herding dogs (HDs) mainly relies on their performance in national field trial competitions, which has been shown to be inadequate for identifying HDs suited for real livestock farming conditions. In this study, a different field trial with a new scoring system consisting of 28 items to consider was designed to assess young HDs, the results of which culminated in a statement of adequate phenotype (AP) or non-adequate phenotype (NAP). An AP HD was defined as being able: to control the direction of a flock, to keep it grouped close to a handler when needed, to confront animals it is dealing with in a respectful manner, and able to create movement of the flock without excessive disturbance, threatening or attacking it through chasing, or uncontrolled biting. This innovative trial is composed of a pre-test (PT) and a test (T) phase. To evaluate its efficiency in detecting AP/NAP, 460 French Border Collies aged between 8 and 24 mo, underwent the trial. Its average duration (PT + T) was 3 min and 16 s (SD = 26 s). According to experts' assessments (Gold Standard), 16.5% of tested HD reached an AP score, and the Idele scoring system correctly identified 93.3% of them (sensitivity). Specificity and accuracy values were of 96.1% and 95.7%, respectively (P value < 0.0004). Recursive feature elimination identified 25 of the 118 features (categories of items) from the scoring system as significant predictors of AP/NAP. An AP HD was statistically defined as a dog who completed the PT and T phases, showed keenness, correct position in relation to the handler, and absence of prey drive. Four environmental effects significantly influenced AP/NAP: the field trial session, the owner's experience with HDs, the conditions of the HD's first contact with livestock, and the type of livestock with which the HD is accustomed to working (P-values <0.0005, <0.05, <0.05, and <0.007, respectively). Inter-evaluator agreement was substantial (0.70). The field trial proved to be a short, easily implemented, standardized, reproducible method for detecting AP/NAP. Hence, the field trial and its scoring system could provide a basis for a breeding program based on phenotype pending additional testing of HDs and genetic analyses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.