Population Structure of Harvested Red Foxes (<em>Vulpes vulpes</em>) and Coyotes (<em>Canis latrans</em>) on Prince Edward Island, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An understanding of the population dynamics and habitat of wild Red Foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and Coyotes (Canis latrans) is a prerequisite to wildlife management. This information is also important in assessing the risk these wild canids pose to the public and domestic animals. On Prince Edward Island, information on age, sex, reproductive activity, and habitat use of 271 Red Foxes and 201 Coyotes was collected in the hunting and trapping season of 2004–2005. The estimated age of Red Foxes and Coyotes ranged from 0.5 to 13.5 years. A large proportion of harvested Red Foxes and Coyotes (58% and 48%, respectively) consisted of juveniles. The sex ratio was not significantly different from 1:1 for either species. Average litter size was 5.0 and 5.2 for Red Foxes and Coyotes, respectively. Number of placental scars ranged from 0 to 7 in Red Foxes and from 0 to 11 in Coyotes. Agricultural areas were the main habitat type (52%) of harvested Red Foxes. For harvested Coyotes, forest was the main habitat (44%), followed closely by agricultural areas (43%). Urban areas were a significant part (13%) of the habitat of Red Foxes. These data can be used to monitor population dynamics over time, provide information for wildlife management, and provide information on potential risk areas for disease transmission by wild canids.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".