MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081613777 · doi:10.1017/s0030605308001622

Long-range juvenile dispersal and its implication for conservation of reintroduced swift fox <i>Vulpes velox</i> populations in the USA and Canada

2009· article· en· W2081613777 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
David E. Ausband, Axel Moehrenschlager

Bibliographic record

VenueOryx · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersParks CanadaAlberta Conservation Association
KeywordsVulpesBiological dispersalJuvenileEcologySwiftRange (aeronautics)BiologyPopulationCarnivoreHabitatHome rangeGeographyPredationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Dispersal is fundamental to the persistence of wild populations. Historically, swift foxes Vulpes velox of the northern Great Plains of North America have been thought to be poor dispersers. Short-grass prairie is optimal habitat for swift foxes but can be fragmented in the northern Great Plains. We wanted to assess whether wild-born, juvenile swift foxes from two proximate but distinct reintroduced populations had potential to move from one population to the other. We found five animals exhibiting long bouts of dispersal, much further than averages previously reported. One female fox traversed the long distance between the two populations and survived for at least three breeding seasons in the wild. We believe our findings are significant for conservation because they show that swift foxes are not poor dispersers and that patches of short-grass prairie previously thought to be too isolated (> 25 km) for natural movement may be recolonized or be suitable for reintroductions of swift foxes.

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)0.001
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 score0.278
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations14
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOryxSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207