MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088849628 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v134i2.2375

Red Fox (<i>Vulpes vulpes</i>) scavenging on the spring sea ice: potential implications for Arctic food webs

2020· article· en· W3088849628 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Thomas S. Jung, Michael J. Suitor, Steven Barykuk, Joseph Nuyaviak, Danny Gordon, Ernest Pokiak

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Northwest TerritoriesYukon Department of EnvironmentUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVulpesLagopusSea iceUrsus maritimusGeographyArcticEcologyHabitatFisheryArctic foxArctic ice packPredationOceanographyBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) has been increasingly observed in the Arctic. However, few observations of Red Foxes occupying and using resources on the sea ice have been reported. We observed a Red Fox scavenging on a Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) carcass on the Beaufort Sea, Northwest Territories, Canada. The fox was in a jumble of ice (i.e., rubble ice) approximately 4.5 km from shore. Local Inuvialuit hunters had also previously observed Red Foxes on the sea ice. Our observation, coupled with those of Inuvialuit hunters, is of interest because it provides additional information on the adaptability of Red Foxes to local environments and their ability to use a wide range of habitats and food sources. Moreover, it points to encroachment by Red Foxes into the offshore habitat of Arctic Foxes (Vulpes lagopus) and potential competition with them for scarce resources, which may impact trophic food webs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207