MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010658194 · doi:10.1644/08-mamm-a-029.1

Torpor Use by Free-Ranging Pallid Bats (<i>Antrozous pallidus</i>) at the Northern Extent of Their Range

2008· article· en· W2010658194 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daniela A. Rambaldini, R. Mark Brigham

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mammalogy · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBat Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersMinistry of EnvironmentWorld Wildlife Fund
KeywordsTorporMorningMicroclimateEcologyPredationBiologyEnvironmental scienceAnimal scienceThermoregulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Torpor minimizes energy expenditure and water loss during periods of inclement weather, low prey availability, or both, and appears especially important in harsh environments such as deserts. We investigated use of torpor by free-ranging adult male pallid bats (Antrozous pallidus) at the northern limit of their range in the semiarid Okanagan Valley in British Columbia, Canada. We predicted that males would use torpor frequently during the active season and that ambient temperature (Ta) as well as nutritional condition (body condition index [BCI]) would affect torpor use. We expected roost microclimate to be conducive to daily heterothermy given that roosts had cool morning temperatures that increased in the afternoon. We used temperature-sensitive radiotransmitters to measure skin temperature (Tskin) of 8 bats from June to August 2003. Seven individuals used torpor each day (n = 54 tracking days) but not at night. Torpor duration increased as mean daytime Ta decreased albeit the relationship differed between individuals. There was no significant effect of individual on the relationship between minimum Tskin during torpor and Ta. BCI was significantly and inversely correlated with torpor bout duration. Mean daytime temperatures in rock crevice roosts approached 30°C and fluctuated less than Ta.

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)0.000
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 score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.170 · 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

Citations37
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of MammalogySame topicBat Biology and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207