MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2085779078 · doi:10.1139/z02-180

Swift fox (<i>Vulpes velox</i>) home-range dispersion patterns in southeastern Wyoming

2002· article· en· W2085779078 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Travis L. Olson, Frederick G. Lindzey

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVulpesHome rangeBiological dispersalRange (aeronautics)BiologyEcologyGrasslandHabitatDemographyPopulationPredation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We monitored dispersion patterns of swift foxes (Vulpes velox) for 3 years in shrub-grassland habitats on the margin of the species' geographic range near Medicine Bow, Wyoming. Annual home-range size was 18.6 ± 1.6 km 2 (mean ± SE, n = 13) and was similar to home-range estimates reported in other studies conducted within grassland habitats in other portions of the species' geographic range. Male home ranges were larger than those of their mates during pup-rearing periods (P < 0.04) but were similar in size during the dispersal period. The home ranges of both sexes were smallest during the pup-rearing period. The degree of home-range overlap for mates (biological periods combined) was high (range = 27.4–100%, mean ± SE = 70.8 ± 0.03%, n = 26 pairs) but was minimal between adjacent pairs (range = 0.2–36%, mean ± SE = 11.9 ± 2.4%, n = 10 pairs), suggesting territorial behavior. Occupied home ranges were distributed similarly each year despite one or both pair members often being new. Swift fox home-range size varied seasonally, and home-range dispersion patterns appeared to be influenced by the presence of other fox pairs and the recent use of an area by other 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)0.000
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 score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.170 · 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

Citations9
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→