What does the fox say? Arctic fox vocalization and associated den behaviours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foxes (Vulpes spp.) are small, solitary canids with relatively low social complexity compared to more gregarious canids, such as wolves and dogs. They are, therefore, expected to have a relatively simple vocal repertoire, with limited low-intensity sounds for close communication and many high-intensity sounds for long-distance communication. Arctic foxes (Vulpes lagopus), like many other foxes, are largely solitary outside of the breeding season. However, they have the largest litter size in the order Carnivora and may experience enhanced social complexity during the breeding season. In this study, we document the vocal repertoire of the Arctic fox during the breeding season, and how it changes before and after the emergence of pups. We also describe the relationship between vocalizations and other denning behaviours. Camera-traps captured six distinct sounds produced by breeding pairs of Arctic foxes and their young at dens: territorial barks, warning barks, alarm calls, cooing, whines and growling. Our study shows that although high-intensity sounds, such as territorial barks, are an important form of long-distance communication among Arctic foxes, low-intensity sounds and sound mixing are used on their dens following pup emergence. Thus, Arctic fox vocalization may be more complex than previously documented.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".