MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104815139 · doi:10.1139/z11-139

Roost selection by the solitary, foliage-roosting hoary bat (<i>Lasiurus cinereus</i>) during lactation

2012· article· en· W2104815139 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Brandon J. Klug, Dayna Goldsmith, Robert M. R. Barclay

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBat Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsMicroclimateBiologyPredationNest (protein structural motif)OffspringEcologyForagingThermoregulationReproductionLactationPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nests, roosts, and dens are an important facet of life for many animals and often provide refuge from weather and predators. Reproduction, particularly lactation, is energetically expensive. Many small mammals form maternity colonies in sheltered locations, which provides protection for offspring and mitigates the cost of staying warm. However, lasiurine bats give birth in roosts that superficially appear to offer relatively little thermal buffer. Given the consequences of a cold environment on offspring growth and the high energetic demand of thermoregulating and lactating concurrently, choosing roosts with certain microclimatic properties would be beneficial. We investigated the influence of microclimate on roost selection by lactating hoary bats ( Lasiurus cinereus (Beauvois, 1796)), a solitary foliage-roosting species. We found that roosts chosen by bats offered shelter from the wind and exposure to sunlight, and consistently had an opening that faced south. We suggest that lactating L. cinereus choose roosts based largely on a microclimate that reduces convective cooling and increases radiant heating, thereby mitigating the cost of thermoregulation and promoting rapid growth of offspring.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicBat Biology and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207