Anthropogenic food use and diet overlap between red foxes (<i>Vulpes</i><i>vulpes</i>) and arctic foxes (<i>Vulpes</i><i>lagopus</i>) in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Red foxes (Vulpes vulpes (L., 1758)) recently expanded into the oil fields at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, USA, and we hypothesized that the availability of anthropogenic foods may contribute to their success and persistence there. This study assessed the importance of anthropogenic foods to the diets of red foxes and arctic foxes (Vulpes lagopus (L., 1758)), and competition for food resources between the two species in Prudhoe Bay. We used stable isotope analysis of fox tissues to infer diet during summer and winter for both red and arctic foxes, and lifetime diet for red fox. While the contribution of anthropogenic foods in late summer for both species’ diets was low (~10% to 15%), the contribution in late winter was higher and varied between species (red foxes = 49%; arctic foxes = 39%). Estimates of lifetime diet in red foxes suggest consistent use of anthropogenic foods. We found moderate overlap of fox diets, although red foxes appeared to be more specialized on lemmings, whereas arctic foxes had a more diverse diet. Availability and consumption of anthropogenic foods by red foxes, particularly in winter, may partially explain their year-round presence in Prudhoe Bay.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".