MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331701550 · doi:10.1139/z11-070

Reproduction and denning by urban and rural San Clemente Island foxes (<i>Urocyon littoralis clementae</i>)

2011· article· en· W2331701550 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nicholas P. Gould, William F. Andelt

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReproductionEcologyPopulationBiologyGeographyDisturbance (geology)Demography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Island foxes ( Urocyon littoralis (Baird, 1858)) have experienced severe reductions in populations on 4 out of 6 California Channel Islands. Although numbers of foxes on San Clemente Island (SCLI; Urocyon littoralis clementae Merriam, 1903) have remained relatively stable, data on reproductive success in urban and rural areas are necessary to better understand population dynamics of foxes and manage the population if it sustains declines. Determining locations and characteristics of den sites will also assist in minimizing possible impacts of humans on foxes. We found that 10 female foxes produced at least 19 kits during 2008. Female foxes that spent a greater proportion of time within an urban area had greater probability of reproducing compared with foxes that infrequently utilized urban areas. However, these “urban” foxes often selected den sites nearer to roads, which may expose them to increased mortalities. We located 23 den sites on a mean of 17°–18° slopes with 40% having westerly facing aspects. We recommend avoiding human disturbance to these areas from February through June, which may minimize potential impacts on foxes. Our study should provide insight into managing island foxes, especially in respect to urban areas on other Channel Islands.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.197
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicWildlife-Road Interactions and ConservationFrench-language works237,207