Winter home range fidelity and extraterritorial movements of Arctic fox pairs in the Canadian High Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sociality of the Arctic fox has been extensively studied during the breeding season, so that its summer territorial and generally monogamous social systems are now well described. A key knowledge gap remains, however, during the winter season, when logistic challenges preclude detailed observation of individuals. We have studied the socio-spatial winter dynamics of Arctic fox pairs to determine: (1) winter fidelity of Arctic fox pair mates to their summer home range; (2) the degree to which extraterritorial movements are simultaneous between pair mates; and (3) spatial proximity between pair mates when they perform simultaneous extraterritorial movements. To meet these objectives, 15 Arctic fox pairs from Bylot Island (Nunavut, Canada) were tracked during at least one winter in 2007–2011, using Argos satellite collars, for a total of 21 pair-years. Arctic foxes were generally faithful to their summer home ranges during winter, but some variation occurred among pairs. The degree of territory fidelity was highly correlated between pair mates. When foxes did extraterritorial movements, they performed excursions that were short in duration and generally not synchronized among pair mates. When pair mates were outside the territory at the same time, they did not travel together and rather foraged independently. We discuss some ecological implications of our findings, and suggest that different patterns may be observed in other Arctic fox populations. If such is the case, replicating our study in other parts of the species range will allow productive hypothesis testing regarding the determinants of Arctic fox winter sociality.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".