Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bats hunting flying insects adjust the design of their echolocation calls according to the situation in which they forage and stage in an attack. Changes in call design across attack sequences alert other bats within earshot to the presence of prey, demonstrating a continuum in roles for biosonar signals between orientation and communication. Many aerial-feeding bats change the design of their echolocation calls in the presence of echolocating conspecifics. Bats may change frequency parameters, durations, and/or intensities of their calls. While a variety of free-tailed bats (Molossidae Otomops martiensseni, Tadarida teniotis, Molossus molossus) consistently change their echolocation calls when more than one bat is flying in an area, at least one sheath-tailed bat (Emballonuridae Taphozous perforatus) does not. Changes in echolocation calls may maximize jamming avoidance and/or enhance the communicative function of the calls. The data for molossids support the hypothesis that when hunting some species fly in formation. Here, variation in individual call design could provide positional information and reduce the chances of mid-air collisions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".