A genetic analysis of the fission-fusion roosting behavior of tree-roosting maternity colonies of big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Cypress Hills Interprovincial Park, Saskatchewan, Canada, tree-roosting big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) exhibit fission-fusion roosting behavior and are philopatric to one of three non-overlapping roosting areas. Bats switch roost trees and potentially roost-mates about every two days, and bats appear to have preferred roost-mates. To assess whether genetic relationships mediate fission-fusion behavior in tree-roosting bats, I combined genetic analyses (microsatellite loci and mitochondrial DNA) with behavioral studies. First, I determined whether female philopatry produced genetic subdivision among the roosting areas. Second, I examined roosting associations within one roosting area to determine whether roost-mate decisions were based on genetic relationships. I found that female-mediated gene flow was restricted between roosting areas while male-mediated gene flow was not. Roosting associations were not influenced by genetic relationships. Mating and dispersal behavior of E. fuscus generate group members that are generally not closely related, and bats do not preferentially roost with closely related or matrilineal females. Thus, kin selection is an unlikely explanation for preferred roost-mates, group stability, and cooperation in tree-roosting E. fuscus."--Abstract from author supplied metadata.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".