MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986256456 · doi:10.1139/z04-074

Conspecifics influence call design in the Brazilian free-tailed bat,<i>Tadarida brasiliensis</i>

2004· article· en· W1986256456 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John M. Ratcliffe, Hannah M. ter Hofstede, Rafa Avila-Flores, M. Brock Fenton, Gary F. McCracken, Stephania Biscardi, Jennifer Blasko, Erin H. Gillam, Jasmine Orprecio, Genvieve Spanjer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBat Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyHabitatEcologyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Brazilian free-tailed bat, Tadarida brasiliensis (Saint-Hilaire, 1824), uses calls that represent a broad continuum of design variation which is dependent upon habitat and situation, and exhibits characteristic changes in call design as bats close in on airborne targets. Here we demonstrate the influence of conspecifics on call design. We found that the peak frequency used in calls varies more as the number of bats flying in the same space increases (measured from single bats and pairs of bats). We investigated this phenomenon through comparing call-parameter differences found between two bats recorded flying together (actual pairs) with call-parameter differences between two bats each recorded flying alone at different locations that were randomly assigned to one another (virtual pairs). We found that actual pairs of bats used calls which differed in peak frequency more so than did virtual pairs. This result is particularly striking given that these frequency differences were greater between bats in the same space than between bats in two different habitats. We argue that these differences indicate that this species is practicing jamming avoidance, air traffic control, or both.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations78
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicBat Biology and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207