Additional file 1 of Coexistence of two sympatric predators in a transitional ecosystem under constraining environmental conditions: a perspective from space and habitat use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additional file 1. Appendix A. Fig. S1. Density histogram of body mass (pelt removed) of red foxes (in orange; n = 43) and Arctic foxes (in blue; n = 193) legally harvested in the Churchill area, Manitoba, Canada in 2017 and 2018. Appendix B. Table S1. Description of habitats selected from the Canadian Landcover 2015 vegetation map ("LC2015", adapted from Latifovic 2019) and reclassification into relevant habitats to fox activities to test for differences between species in the home range composition. Table S2. Proportion of each habitat type in the total area of each individual fox’s MNLV- and NSV-home range (50% UD) between March 15 and June 15 in northeastern Manitoba, Canada (habitat IDs described in Table S1). (MNLV: Mean Number of Locations per Visit; NSV: Number of Separate Visits). Fig. S2. Variograms of foxes identified as resident after inspection of their raw tracks at large time lags (25-40 days). AF = Arctic fox, RF = red fox. Fig. S3. Examples of interactions between Arctic and red foxes in the Churchill and Wapusk area in northeastern Manitoba, Canada. A) The two species can be observed tolerating each other, notably where they may access anthropogenic food subsidies (in town). B) Rarely but regularly, interference interactions can be lethal for the Arctic foxes. These extreme events were always observed in November (B. Debets, pers. obs., November 2014; J. Waterman, pers. obs., November 2017; D. Alcorn, pers. obs., November 2020), which, in Churchill, marks the beginning of food scarcity and harsher climate (Warret Rodrigues and Roth 2023). C) Arctic fox chasing a red fox from its den (interference interaction) in June, when geese have started reproduction and resources are becoming more abundant, but pups are likely born and highly vulnerable (both foxes remained alive at least until the camera stopped working the following week). Photos courtesy of Churchill resident Dave Allcorn (A; March 2022) and Dr. Jane Waterman (B; November 2017), and retrieved from our Reconyx trail camera by Sean Johnson-Bice (C; June 2021).
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 | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.841 | 0.115 |
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".