The relationship between humans and urban foxes on Prince Edward Island
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the relationship between humans and urban foxes living in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. In recent years colloquial evidence suggests that there has been an increase in foxes living in urban areas of Prince Edward Island, which may eventually lead to an increase in negative interactions. An online questionnaire was administered to 456 residents of Prince Edward Island, in order to explore their attitudes and interactions towards foxes. The survey results were examined using thematic analysis in order to identify common attitudes towards foxes in residents of Charlottetown. The themes identified were: positive attitudes towards urban foxes, negative attitudes towards urban foxes, concern for the safety of foxes, concern for the safety of humans, concern about loss of wildlife habitat, and concerns about humans feeding foxes. Our findings showed that most respondents on Prince Edward Island have positive attitudes and feelings towards foxes. In order to explore the relationship between humans and urban foxes, the histories of foxes in England and Prince Edward Island were documented and compared. Foxes began entering urban areas in England during the 1940s, and were initially received well. Due to a large population of bold urban foxes, as well as outbreaks of disease in the fox population, foxes are now less welcome in urban areas of England. By comparing human attitudes regarding foxes between Prince Edward Island and England, we hope to obtain insights into future attitudes towards foxes on Prince Edward Island.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".