Population ecology of swift foxes (<i>Vulpes velox</i>) in southeastern Colorado
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Swift foxes (Vulpes velox) were once distributed across most of the shortgrass prairie of North America. The arrival of settlers and the concurrent loss of habitat, trapping, incidental poisoning, and shooting brought about a decline in its numbers until the swift fox remained only in the southern part of its historic range. A current understanding of swift fox population ecology is important to management and conservation efforts. We examined the population ecology of swift foxes on a native shortgrass prairie ecosystem in southeastern Colorado. From January 1997 to December 1998 we investigated home-range size and space use, spatial overlap, dispersal patterns, survival rates, and reproduction using a sample of 90 (42 males, 48 females) radio-collared foxes. Home ranges were largest (9.4 ± 4.9 km2) and spatial overlap was greatest using nighttime locations when foxes were active, while daytime locations indicated that the use of dens was exclusive among social units, and space use (2.8 ± 2.2 km2) was reduced during the day. Among resident foxes, survival rates were higher for adults than for juveniles. For dispersing foxes, adults that dispersed had higher survival rates than juvenile dispersers. Social units ranged in size from 2 to 4 foxes. About 58% of the social units produced pups; litter size averaged 2.4 pups at den emergence. Among the surviving pup cohort, some pups were philopatric, some dispersed long distances, while others dispersed to neighboring territories. Swift fox density was negatively associated with both coyote (Canis latrans) and lagomorph abundance but positively correlated with rodent abundance.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".