Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Twenty-five characters or suites of characters from bats are considered in light of changes in bat classification. The characters include some associated with flower-visiting (two), echolocation (12), roosting (six), reproduction (two) and three are of unknown adaptive function. In both the 1998 and 2006 classifications of bats into suborders (Megachiroptera and Microchiroptera versus Yinpterochiroptera and Yangochiroptera, respectively), some convergences between suborders are the same (e.g., foliage roosting, tent building), but others associated with echolocation differ substantially. In the 1998 phylogeny convergences associated with echolocation (high duty cycle echolocation, nasal emission of echolocation calls) occurred among the Microchiroptera. In the 2006 phylogeny, they occur between Yinpterochiroptera and Yangochiroptera. While some traits apparently arose independently in two suborders (e.g., foliage-roosting, tent building, low intensity echolocation calls, noseleafs, nasal emission of echolocation calls, high duty cycle echolocation behaviour), others appear to have been ancestral (roosting in narrow spaces, laryngeal echolocation, stylohyal-tympanic contact, oral emission of echolocation calls, and small litter size). A narrow profile through the chest is typical of bats reflecting the thoracic skeleton. This feature suggests that the ancestors of bats spent the day in small crevices. Features associated with laryngeal echolocation appear to be ancestral, suggesting that echolocation evolved early in bats but was subsequently lost in one yinpterochiropteran lineage.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".