Shifts in Fox Den Occupancy in the Greater Prudhoe Bay Area, Alaska
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although shifts in the distribution of red foxes into areas previously dominated by Arctic foxes have been documented over wide areas of the circumpolar North, no such documentation exists yet for the Alaskan Arctic. Fox research in the greater Prudhoe Bay area from the 1970s through the early 1990s focused primarily on Arctic foxes in relation to oil development because red foxes were uncommon. A monitoring program in 2005–12 included annual surveys of 31–48 fox dens within 2 km of the road system. In 2005, 2006, and 2008, Arctic fox dens outnumbered those of red foxes, but from 2010 onward, the reverse was true. There is greater distance between natal dens of Arctic foxes and those of red foxes than between natal dens within each species, suggesting that Arctic foxes avoid red fox denning territories. Of dens in our study that were used by Arctic foxes prior to 2005, 50% have since been occupied by red foxes. Red foxes displaced Arctic foxes from dens closest to oil field camps, pads, and other facilities, and preyed on their pups. Access to anthropogenic food sources probably supports red foxes in the area. Predictions from climate change studies indicate the displacement of Arctic foxes by red foxes will continue in the Alaskan Arctic, although the change may be slower away from areas of human occupation and anthropogenic foods.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".