Bat heart mass: correlation with foraging niche and roost preference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We found that the spirit-preserved hearts of 34 species of Australian bat, representing 6 families, weighed from 0.3 to 0.65% of bat mass (mbat), a variation factor of two. The average mass of the heart specimens of the 34 species was 0.501% of bat mass and this did not vary with bat mass. This value was much lower than the average of the available published data, 0.991%. Insectivorous bats that forage or fly in and near three-dimensional clutter have heart mass fractions ~0.04% larger than average, whereas insectivorous bats that forage around and above the canopy in clear air have fractions ~0.16% smaller than average. Insectivorous bats that are obligate deep-cave roosters have significantly smaller fractions, 0.18% smaller than average, whereas those that hover have fractions ~0.08% larger than average. Available published data, although based on freshly sacrificed animals, show the same trends in relation to heart mass fraction and the same scatter and body-mass relationships. However, the magnitude of the fractions differs by a factor of two and may relate to our removal of all tissue except the musculature and walls of the four cardiac chambers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".