Monitoring of arctic and red fox reproduction on Bylot Island, Nunavut, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foxes are strongly dependent on dens for parturition and rearing of cubs. Due to the shallow permafrost-free layer in most of the arctic fox’s range, new dens are rarely dug and existing ones are often used repeatedly year after year. An effective way to monitor both arctic and red fox populations is to take advantage of their use of den sites for reproduction. Starting in 1993, known den sites in the south plain of Bylot Island were opportunistically visited to assess the presence of cubs. Starting from 2003, the monitoring became systematic. An extensive search of dens was conducted and covered an area of ca. 600 km2 going from the Qarlikturvik valley to Pointe Dufour. Since then, dens are visited twice during summer, once in mid-May and once at the end of June. All visits are made within a week to avoid counting the same litter twice due to relocation of cubs during the rearing period. Only dens where cubs are seen or heard are categorized as breeding dens (natal or rearing den). Since 2007, camera traps are installed on some dens to complement field observations.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".