MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

FORAGING DISTANCES AND HOME RANGE OF PREGNANT AND LACTATING LITTLE BROWN BATS (MYOTIS LUCIFUGUS)

2002· article· en· W2031179407 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mammalogy · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBat Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsParks CanadaUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaParks Canada
KeywordsMyotis lucifugusForagingLactationBiologyReproductionRange (aeronautics)PregnancyZoologyEcologyAnimal science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As income breeders, lactating female bats rely on current resource intake to support costs of reproduction and so must reconcile the conflicting demands of foraging and nursing. We documented changes in the movement of female little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus) around roosts between pregnancy and lactation. Home-range size dropped by 51% between pregnancy and lactation, resulting in a 35% decrease in flight distances. Although pregnant females rarely returned to roosts during the night, lactating females returned 1–2 times, which led to an increase in activity at the roosts beginning about 3 h after initial emergence. We argue that their high mass-specific milk production forces lactating females to nurse at night, which in turn imposes a constraint on foraging distances. The shift to a smaller home range is probably facilitated by the concomitant increase in insect biomass during the July lactation period.

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.

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 score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.204
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