MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137165348 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v123i4.1004

Historical Range, Current Distribution, and Conservation Status of the Swift Fox, <em>Vulpes velox</em>, in North America

2009· article· en· W2137165348 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Marsha A. Sovada, Robert O. Woodward, Lawrence D. Igl

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndangered speciesVulpesRange (aeronautics)WildlifeGeographyConservation statusThreatened speciesEcologyAbundance (ecology)PopulationHabitatDistribution (mathematics)Species distributionFisheryBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) was once common in the shortgrass and mixed-grass prairies of the Great Plains of North America. The species' abundance declined and its distribution retracted following European settlement of the plains. By the late 1800s, the species had been largely extirpated from the northern portion of its historical range, and its populations were acutely depleted elsewhere. Swift Fox populations have naturally recovered somewhat since the 1950s, but overall abundance and distribution remain below historical levels. In a 1995 assessment of the species' status under the US Endangered Species Act, the US Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that a designation of threatened or endangered was warranted, but the species was "precluded from listing by higher listing priorities." A major revelation of the 1995 assessment was the recognition that information useful for determining population status was limited. Fundamental information was missing, including an accurate estimate of the species' distribution before European settlement and an estimate of the species' current distribution and trends. The objectives of this paper are to fill those gaps in knowledge. Historical records were compiled and, in combination with knowledge of the habitat requirements of the species, the historical range of the Swift Fox is estimated to be approximately 1.5 million km2. Using data collected between 2001 and 2006, the species' current distribution is estimated to be about 44% of its historical range in the United States and 3% in Canada. Under current land use, approximately 39% of the species' historical range contains grassland habitats with very good potential for Swift Fox occupation and another 10% supports grasslands with characteristics that are less preferred (e.g., a sparse shrub component or taller stature) but still suitable. Additionally, land use on at least 25% of the historical range supports dryland farming, which can be suitable for Swift Fox occupation. In the United States, approximately 52% of highest quality habitats currently available are occupied by 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 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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.658
Threshold uncertainty score0.907

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations25
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207