Morphology, Diet and Flower‐visiting by Phyllostomid Bats in Cuba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Pollinator morphology can play an important role in structuring plant–pollinator relationships and a pollinator's morphology may be associated with aspects of its diet. We examined the relationship between morphology and the partitioning of flower‐based food resources for five species of flower‐visiting Cuban bats: Artibeus jamaicensis, Brachyphylla nana, Erophylla sezekorni, Monophyllus redmani and Phyllonycteris poeyi. We analyzed cranial traits and body size to assess differences among species with respect to morphological specializations. We also collected dietary data from guano and used acoustic monitoring to assess bat activity at flowers. We found evidence that bats partition floral resources, but we found no direct evidence that plants were limiting resources for the bats. Morphological similarity among bat species did not predict dietary overlap. Rather it was associated with phylogenic relationships among some species. Species with different morphological specialization for flower‐visiting consumed resources and visited food plants at different frequencies.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".