USE OF COVER AND RESPONSE TO COVER TYPE EDGES BY FEMALE SIERRA NEVADA RED FOXES IN WINTER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".