The reproductive performance of female red foxes, <i>Vulpes vulpes</i>, in central-western New South Wales during and after a drought
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reproductive condition of 295 female red foxes, Vulpes vulpes, collected during and shortly after a severe drought in central-western New South Wales, Australia, was assessed to assist research on the potential use of immunocontraception. The ovulation and conception rates per vixen for the 222 foxes that ovulated were 4.62 ± 1.50 and 3.58 ± 2.18 (mean ± SD), respectively. The resorption rate and mean litter size per vixen for the 188 foxes that were pregnant were 0.47 ± 0.92 and 3.75 ± 1.91, respectively. Details of the parameters are provided for each age-class. The proportion of the overall population that was pregnant was 0.847. Conception rates and litter sizes peaked in fifth- and sixth-year vixens, but vixens over 8 years of age produced as many cubs as first-year breeders did. Vixens collected during 1996, when rainfall was above average, contained significantly more corpora lutea than vixens collected during the drought years 1994 and 1995. There were no significant differences in other reproductive parameters (i.e., conception and resorption rates, litter size, and proportion of the population that was pregnant) between the 3 collection years. Mating occurred within a 3- to 7-week period from mid-June to the end of July and births from early August to late September. From a practical point of view, vixens will need to be targeted with immunocontraceptive baits in autumn.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".