The Ecology of Red Foxes, <em>Vulpes vulpes</em>, in Metropolitan Toronto, Ontario: Disease Management Implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During 1989-1992, 33 Red Foxes (Vulpes vulpes) were fitted with radio-collars in metropolitan Toronto to study their behaviour which would provide data to assist with the design of a rabies control strategy for urban areas of Ontario. Annual home range size for adult foxes (avg = 325 ha, SD = 207) was significantly larger than that of juvenile foxes (avg = 165 ha, SD = 176), but we could not detect any seasonal differences in home range size for foxes. Mean (SD) nightly ranges were 38.3 ha (48.3) in spring, 97.4 ha (115.4) in summer, 26.8 ha (28.5) in fall, and 16.3 ha (13.6) in winter. Movements by foxes during the period from June to November averaged 3.5 km (2.89). Eleven of the foxes were known to have dispersed (? 3 km from their home range), but we could not detect a mean direction of dispersal. Thirty-six percent (4/11) of the foxes dispersed in December and 18% (2/11) dispersed in August, with the remainder dispersing between February and November. Average dispersal distance was 19.3 km (15.6), and a significant negative correlation was detected between initial home range size and dispersal distance of foxes. Mortality of radio-collared foxes was caused by collisions with automobiles, predation, and shooting. Foxes made extensive use of ravines and other greenbelt areas, such as parks and golf courses. Residential areas were also used by some foxes. Knowledge of the habitats frequented by foxes as well as their movement potential assisted researchers in determining where vaccine baits should be placed for the control of rabies in Red Foxes in metropolitan Toronto.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".