MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043463837 · doi:10.7882/az.2011.003

The importation, release, establishment, spread, and early impact on prey animals of the red fox <i>Vulpes vulpes</i> in Victoria and adjoining parts of south-eastern Australia

2011· article· en· W2043463837 on OpenAlexaff
Ian Abbott

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Zoologist · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVulpesPredationGeographyCaptivityBiologyFisheryEcologyArchaeologyZoologyVeterinary medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on new evidence (700 records), this paper provides a detailed account of the importation, release, occurrence, establishment, spread, and early impact on prey animals of the red fox, Vulpes vulpes, in Victoria and adjacent parts of south-eastern Australia. Foxes were imported to Victoria on at least nine occasions between 1845 and 1879, mainly for sporting purposes, and were released directly into the wild on at least five occasions between 1845 and 1873. Foxes may also have been bred in captivity, as some were exhibited at agricultural shows in 1869 and 1872. Releases in 1845 near Geelong and in about 1868 and 1871 near Ballarat did not persist. The prevalence of guns in the rural community, together with a culture of shooting animals for sport, and the broadscale deployment of poison to kill dingoes, feral dogs, and rabbits, apparently conspired to restrict the rapid establishment and spread of foxes across Victoria before 1880. The main point of successful establishment was in Werribee district, possibly in about 1874 (but definitely by 1878), and probably by the wealthy Chirnside family of Werribee Park. Foxes became conspicuously numerous between Geelong and Melbourne in 1878-79 and then dispersed. From 1882 foxes were often unbagged at hunt club meets, and some of these were able to elude the hounds of the pack as they gave chase. The increased availability of rabbits and hares, resulting from their earlier release and subsequent ineffectual control mechanisms, presumably favoured the survival and spread of foxes. Foxes were also translocated by some crop growers in an effort to combat rabbits and hares, though this is poorly documented. The dense forests of Gippsland impeded colonisation, so that Victoria was probably not entirely colonised until about 1900. Foxes reached the Adelaide district of South Australia in 1905 and the Queensland/ New South Wales border in 1907. Unintended consequences of the introduction of foxes were soon observed: killing of lambs and poultry by 1868; native birds by 1879; and native mammals by c. 1900.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations52
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian ZoologistSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207