The denning behaviour of dingoes (Canis dingo) living in a human-modified environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about reproduction and den site selection by free-ranging dingoes. We present observations of den sites used by dingoes inhabiting a large-scale mining operation located in the Great Sandy Desert, Western Australia. We observed 24 dens concentrated within a 1-km radius. Den sites were generally situated in elevated positions overlooking the surrounding area, were a short distance from food and water resources, required vegetation (particularly spinifex grass) to provide a firm foundation and stable ceiling in the soft sand, and had single den openings that faced away from the rising and daytime sun. Distance to human structures or activity did not appear to influence site selection. Four of the dens were active, containing a total of 37 pups aged between two and four weeks of age. One den contained 18 pups of different ages, indicating that communal denning was also occurring. The high number of breeding females within close proximity suggests that multiple family groups are able to share resources and live in close proximity. Our findings highlight the importance of human-modified areas and abundance of resources in the reproduction and breeding site selection of dingoes.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".