Effect of space and floor material on the behaviour of farmed blue foxes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effects of space and floor material on the behaviour of blue foxes were evaluated in the following groups: (1) small wire-mesh cages (50 cm long × 105 wide cm × 70 cm high; W50); (2) medium wire-mesh cages (120 cm long × 105 cm wide × 70 cm high; W120); (3) wire-mesh floored pens (5 m long × 3m wide × 1.8 m high:W500); and (4) earthen floored pens (5 m long × 3 m wide × 1.8 m high; E500). Activity and locomotion were lowest in W50 foxes and tended to increase with increasing cage size. Floor material had only a slight effect on activity and stereotypies. Locomotion was higher in E500 than in W500 foxes. Locomotor stereotypy increased with increasing cage size, and was higher in W500 than in E500 foxes. Significant periodic changes were found in several behavioural variables. Activity was concentrated most and least frequently between 8 and 16 h and 0 and 8 h, respectively. The same tendency was found for sitting, standing, locomotion and activity. Digging was noted only in E500 foxes, averaging 15 min/24 h, and being most common between 16 and 24 h. Key words: Alopex lagopus, cage size, floor type, housing conditions, ethogram
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".