{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025606469002695417, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0013477088948787063, 'mean_word_length': 4.8046875, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Domestic dogs: the behavioural implications of social living. Part 2

This article forms the second of a two-part series that considers how well the term ‘domestic dog’ can act as a predictor that the dog should experience no problems in co-existing with humans in domestic, family homes. The previous article took a brief look at the likely domestication process for the dog and suggested that free-roaming dogs (village, street or dump dogs) are better models for ‘natural’ canine behaviour, than that of the wolf. This article considers how well the dog's innate capacity for social flexibility with other dogs equips it for coping with social encounters with both dogs and humans in a complex human environment, and limitations in coping.