Foraging behaviour of the large-footed myotis, <i>Myotis moluccarum</i> (Chiroptera : Vespertilionidae) in south-eastern Queensland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because of differences in the time, energy, and nutrient demands on male and female mammals during reproduction, differences in foraging behaviour can be expected between the sexes and over time. Using radio-telemetry, we studied the foraging behaviour of male and female large-footed bats ( Myotis moluccarum ) in south-eastern Queensland during the lactation and post-lactation periods. Individuals commuted over 10 km from their diurnal roost to forage over a large reservoir. There were typically one or two foraging trips per individual per night for a total foraging time averaging 7 h. Females foraged longer than did males, due to longer second foraging bouts. Males foraged for longer during the lactation period than during the post-lactation period, whereas there was no difference for females, possibly due to the fact that post-lactating females are pregnant with a second litter and thus may not experience a large reduction in energy demand. Males of this harem-forming species did not appear to defend foraging territories and females did not forage near their harem male.
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".