MORPHOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES AMONG WESTERN LONG-EARED MYOTIS (MYOTIS EVOTIS) POPULATIONS IN DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared the external morphology of western long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) living in mountain (cool, wet) and prairie (warm, dry) environments in southern Alberta to test whether flight permits genetic exchange between populations thereby limiting divergence in morphological traits. We measured size of the body (forearm length and mass), ears, and wings for males and females. Ears and wings were significantly larger for bats in the mountains, suggesting that there is limited gene flow between populations despite their geographic proximity, and adaptation to differences in aridity or foraging habitat. However, body size was similar between environments, suggesting that either M. evotis possesses an ecologically flexible body type or that differences in extremity size are the result of environmentally induced phenotypic plasticity. Within environments, females were larger than males for all morphometrics. However, the degree of dimorphism was similar for mountain and prairie populations, indicating that dimorphism is not the result of different thermoregulatory needs in these populations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".