MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W171224178

USE OF COVER AND RESPONSE TO COVER TYPE EDGES BY FEMALE SIERRA NEVADA RED FOXES IN WINTER

2005· article· en· W171224178 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDigitalCommons - CalPoly (California State Polytechnic University) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCover (algebra)GeographyEcologyBiologyEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) use a variety of habitats across their range, including semiarid deserts, tundra, boreal forests, farmland, and urban areas (Larivière and Pasitschniak-Arts 1996). Within these habitats there is much variation in the use of different cover types among populations of red foxes (Jones and Theberge 1982, Halpin and Bissonette 1988, Theberge and Wedeles 1989, St-Georges et al. 1995). In Maine, red foxes used coniferous stands and open areas more than expected (Halpin and Bissonette 1988). In British Columbia, red foxes used shrub communities more than expected and open areas less than expected (Jones and Theberge 1982). In the Yukon Territory, red foxes used shrub habitats more than forests or open areas (Theberge and Wedeles 1989). Edge habitat, between forest and shrub stands, was important for red foxes in Quebec (St-Georges et al. 1995). Variation in use of cover by this species necessitates populationspecific studies of red fox habitat relations for use in conservation and management.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.582
Threshold uncertainty score0.835

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it