MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135384282 · doi:10.14430/arctic828

Arctic Fox (<i>Alopex lagopus</i>) Diet in Karupelv Valley, East Greenland, during a Summer eith Low Lemming Density

2000· article· en· W2135384282 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fredrik Dalerum, Anders Angerbjörn

Bibliographic record

VenueARCTIC · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLagopusArcticArctic foxPredationEcologyBiologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated the diet of arctic foxes (Alopex lagopus) in the Karupelv valley, East Greenland, during the summer of 1997. Despite a low density, lemmings were the most utilized prey, comprising 65.3% of dry fecal weight in fresh feces. This demonstrates the importance of lemming species as prey for arctic foxes all through a lemming cycle. Birds, arctic hare (Lepus arcticus), and insects also contributed to the diet. Arctic fox remains suggested that the foxes had scavenged their own species. Vegetation, muskoxen (Ovibos moschatus), and seal (Phocidae) were found in small amounts. We compared estimates of prey availability and diets of arctic foxes for a coastal area (<10 km from the shore) and an inland area (>10 km from the shore). Abundance of avian prey tended to be higher in the coastal area. Fresh feces indicated a significant overall difference in arctic fox diets between the coastal and inland areas. Within prey categories, lemmings were significantly more represented in the inland area, while the coastal area had a more diverse diet overall. We also suggest that the existence of arctic foxes in East Greenland is dependent on regular peak years in lemming density.

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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations44
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueARCTICSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207