MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122867952 · doi:10.1644/06-mamm-a-348r.1

Social Monogamy in Kit Foxes: Formation, Association, Duration, and Dissolution of Mated Pairs

2007· article· en· W2122867952 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Katherine Ralls, Brian L. Cypher, Linda K. Spiegel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mammalogy · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPrimate Behavior and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of ReginaMassachusetts Department of Fish and GameSmithsonian InstitutionCalifornia Department of Fish and GameCalifornia Department of TransportationUniversity of OxfordCalifornia Energy CommissionBureau of ReclamationU.S. Department of Transportation
KeywordsPair bondDemographyZoologyBiologyAbandonment (legal)TerritorialityEcologyVulpesReproductive successSeasonal breederSociologyPredation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social monogamy is characterized by long-term pair-bonds, but there is extensive variation among socially monogamous species in the timing of pair formation, the extent to which pair-mates associate throughout the year, the duration of pair-bonds, and the frequency with which pair-bonds are dissolved while both partners are living. We studied these aspects of social monogamy in kit foxes (Vulpes macrotis) at 1 urban and 2 nonurban sites. Behavior was similar across sites despite differences in ecological conditions. Pair formation occurred throughout the year, often within a month after the loss of a mate. Pair-mates associated throughout the year. Some pairs remained associated for more than 1 breeding season. Death of a pair-mate was the most common reason for the dissolution of a pair (14 of 16 cases). Two pairs dissolved while both partners were still living: 1 due to abandonment by a male of his pair-mate and territory and 1 due to displacement of a male by another male. These characteristics of social monogamy in kit foxes may be related to year-round territoriality, and may optimize individual fitness by enhancing survival and ultimately reproductive success.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations28
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of MammalogySame topicPrimate Behavior and EcologyFrench-language works237,207