MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1555554966 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v125i3.1231

Consumption of Bats (<em>Myotis</em> spp.) by Raccoons (<em>Procyon lotor</em>) During an Outbreak of White-Nose Syndrome in New Brunswick, Canada: Implications for Estimates of Bat Mortality

2011· article· en· W1555554966 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Donald F. McAlpine, Karen J. Vanderwolf, Graham J. Forbes, David Malloch

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBat Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersFonds en Fiducie pour la Faune du Nouveau-BrunswickAtlantic Veterinary CollegeCanadian Wildlife Federation
KeywordsMyotis lucifugusCaveBiologyHibernation (computing)PredationNoseOutbreakZoologyEcologyAnimal scienceAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Across their range, Raccoons (Procyon lotor) will opportunistically exploit bats (Chiroptera) roosting in caves as a source of food. During a significant mortality event associated with white-nose syndrome (WNS) at a cave in eastern Canada, we estimate that Raccoons consumed 3169–3827 dead and dying Little Brown Bats (Myotis lucifugus) and Northern Long-eared Bats (M. septentrionalis) infected with white-nose syndrome, equivalent to 62.0–74.9% of the total bat mortality at this site. However, the generally small dispersal distances of Raccoons and their reduced activity during the period when bats are hibernating suggest that Raccoons are likely not a significant vector for moving the fungus associated with white-nose syndrome, Geomyces destructans, between most caves at this latitude. Nevertheless, since we show that significant numbers of bats can be consumed in hibernacula through opportunistic feeding by Raccoons, estimates of in-cave mortality due to white-nose syndrome should incorporate any evidence of consumption of bats by Raccoons and other predators.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score0.919

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2011
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicBat Biology and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207