Dispersal characteristics of swift foxes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From 1997 to 2001, we monitored movements of 109 adult and 114 juvenile swift foxes, Vulpes velox (Say, 1823), at study sites in Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas to determine patterns of dispersal. Significantly more male (93%) than female (58%) juveniles dispersed, and both sexes had similar bimodal dispersal patterns with peaks in September–October and January–February. Adult dispersal occurred more evenly throughout the year, and significantly more male (32%) than female (5%) adults dispersed. Adult males tended to disperse after the death of their mate. Of dispersing foxes with known fates, settlement percentages in new territories were similar between juvenile males and females (40% overall), but they were significantly lower than for adults (89%). All other dispersing foxes with known fates died. Among juvenile females with known fates, similar percentages of philopatric and dispersing foxes reproduced as yearlings (50% overall), so the benefits of dispersal versus philopatry were not clear. Although rarely reported for other species, adult males were an important dispersal cohort in swift foxes (43% of male dispersals and 25% of all dispersals). Because of the female-biased philopatry among swift foxes, dispersal of adult males likely decreased the chances for inbreeding (e.g., father–daughter breeding).
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) | 0.001 | 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".