ORIGINAL PAPER Arctic fox versus red fox in the warming Arctic: four decades of den surveys in north Yukon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract During the last century, the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) has expanded its distribution into the Arctic, where it competes with the arctic fox (Vulpes lagopus), an eco-logically similar tundra predator. The red fox expansion correlates with climate warming, and the ultimate deter-minant of the outcome of the competition between the two species is hypothesized to be climate. We conducted aerial and ground fox den surveys in the northern Yukon (Her-schel Island and the coastal mainland) to investigate the relative abundance of red and arctic foxes over the last four decades. This region has undergone the most intense warming observed in North America, and we hypothesized that this climate change led to increasing dominance of red fox over arctic fox. Results of recent surveys fall within the range of previous ones, indicating little change in the rel-ative abundance of the two species. North Yukon fox dens are mostly occupied by arctic fox, with active red fox dens occurring sympatrically. While vegetation changes have been reported, there is no indication that secondary pro-ductivity and food abundance for foxes have increased. Our study shows that in the western Arctic of North America, where climate warming was intense, the competitive bal-ance between red and arctic foxes changed little in 40 years. Our results challenge the hypotheses linking climate to red fox expansion, and we discuss how climate warming’s negative effects on predators may be overriding positive effects of milder temperatures and longer growing seasons.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".