Data from: Study "Arctic fox Bylot - Argos tracking"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rapid range expansion of boreal forest predators onto the tundra may disrupt local ecological processes, notably through competition with ecologically similar species. Red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) have expanded their range northwards throughout the Canadian Arctic, inducing competition with endemic Arctic foxes (V. lagopus). We studied competition between Arctic and red foxes, with a focus on interference competition, and winter movements of red foxes using satellite telemetry and den occupancy data from both species. We worked at Bylot Island (Nunavut) and Herschel Island (northern Yukon), two sites at the northern limit of the red fox’s range. As expected, red fox home ranges were 56% larger on average than Arctic fox home ranges. However, red foxes did not exclude arctic foxes regionally nor did they prevent them from breeding successfully in their vicinity. On Bylot Island, Arctic foxes did not spatially avoid red foxes more than their conspecifics, as evidenced by similar intra- and inter-specific home-range overlaps. On Herschel Island, the red fox pair's home range extensively overlapped the home range of their Arctic fox neighbors. While red foxes tracked on Bylot Island survived several winters without expanding or leaving their home ranges, those on Herschel Island moved onto the sea ice and died. Overall, our results demonstrate low levels of interference competition between the two species in the High Canadian Arctic. When red fox density is low, as in our study areas where land protection prevents predator subsidization by anthropogenic food sources, Arctic and red foxes may be able to co-exist with limited antagonistic interactions. Our sample sizes were limited by the naturally low density of red foxes at their northernmost edge, thus replication is needed to fully understand winter space use and intraguild interactions in this species at its northern range limit.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.027 |
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".