My video sampling was not accurate, it did not allow me to have better observations data.
We have done way better toward the end of the study but I could not include these new results in my thesis due to a lack of data set to compare the new data to.

However the training log was a huge amount of information I could take data from.

The results I have on the pearson chi² test are partly explanable, I think, due to the fact that the zoo reopened its doors during the february month and part of the data collected were collected during a time when the visitors were present for the first time.
This might explain why the wolves did not come all the way to the food location in some occasions, because the visitors were present. But due to a number of other factors we can not make any conclusion regarding this matter.

What is certain however is that the number of time that the wolves decided not to come after being called as been reduced significantly after the training started regularily compared to before which, in itself, is a success.

Due to the fact that my observations happened during the winter in a lapland region, I do not have a lot of raw data to tap into.
Also many technical issues occured during my time in the zoo (camera challenges, temperature so low I could not stay outside for a full hour, mistakes...etc.)
Due to these, I only have five days of data (one hour a day) for each visits. This is a very small amount of information to analyse and it most likely explain the lack of result I got.

Despite the lack of data I actually got result that tend to point in the direction of an improving situation for the female at least.
She looks like she is more relaxed during my second visit than my first which is a good devellopement comprared to what we found the first time we came into the zoo.