Effect of sex and female reproductive status on seasonal home range size and stability in rural red foxes (<i>Vulpes vulpes</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
:Intra-population variations in home range size can be considerable among carnivores, especially in the red fox (Vulpes vulpes). In this species, variations are not necessarily sex or age dependent. Our aim was to test whether differences in home range size and stability could be related to red fox female reproductive status, considering that red fox populations exhibit variable proportions of barren vixens. We examined differences in size and stability of seasonal home ranges of 16 foxes (three males and 13 females) radio-tracked from June 2001 to June 2003, in the Ardennes, France. Mean individual home range sizes varied widely, from 31 to 311 ha, with an average of 109 ha. The smaller a home range was, the more stable it was. Home range size was not sex dependent, but female home ranges were more stable than male ones. Reproductive females, mostly 2 y old at least, had smaller home ranges (mean: 50 ha) than non-reproductive females (mean: 174 ha), all 1 y of age. However, there was no difference in female home range stability. We hypothesized that reproductive females monopolize the richest food patches at the expense of non-reproductive females, which are younger and assumed to be subordinate and/or less experienced. Therefore, home range size correlated to food richness may be an important factor for female reproductive success. Competition for food and space could thus explain female reproductive suppression.
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".