SHORT NOTE Red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) at their expanding front in the Canadian Arctic have indigenous maternal ancestry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The red fox (Vulpes vulpes) expanded its dis-tribution over large parts of the Canadian Arctic during the twentieth century and is now considered a threat to the arctic fox (Vulpes lagopus). Some authors have proposed that the European red fox, introduced in Eastern North America during the eighteenth century, may have spread and caused the species ’ expansion in the Arctic. Assessing the biological origin of red foxes in the Nearctic is critical to determine whether their presence constitutes a case of an invading exotic species. We analyzed genetic material obtained from four red foxes at Herschel Island (Yukon) and Bylot Island (Nunavut), at the northern expanding front of the species. Samples from Bylot provide the northern-most genetic information on red fox obtained worldwide. We identified mitochondrial DNA haplotypes in red foxes from both Arctic locations that were phylogenetically divergent from those in Eurasia, but shared with neigh-boring indigenous North American populations. Thus, our results indicate that the twentieth century expansion of red foxes in the Canadian Arctic involved nearby populations potentially benefiting from habitat changes, rather than an exotic species invading new habitats.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".