MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107031501 · doi:10.1242/bio.201410181

Morphological, olfactory, and vocal development in big brown bats

2014· article· en· W2107031501 on OpenAlexaff
Heather W. Mayberry, Paul A. Faure

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology Open · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBat Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEptesicus fuscusHuman echolocationBiologyOlfactory cuesOffspringOdorCall durationAudiologyDuration (music)ZoologyOlfactionNeuroscienceAcousticsPhysicsPregnancyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using a within subjects design, we documented morphological, bioacoustical and behavioral developmental changes in big brown bats. Eptesicus fuscus pups are born naked and blind but assume an adult-like appearance by post-natal day (PND) 45 and flight by PND 30. Adult females use spatial memory, acoustic and olfactory cues to reunite with offspring, but it is unclear if pups can recognize maternal scents. We tested the olfactory discrimination abilities of young E. fuscus pups and found they exhibited no odor preferences. Pups also emit distinct vocalizations called isolation calls (i-calls) that facilitate mother-offspring reunions, but how pups shift their vocalizations from i-calls to downward frequency modulated (FM) sweeps used in echolocation remains unclear. Between PND 0-9, pups emitted mainly long duration, tonal i-calls rich in harmonics, but after they switched to short duration, downward FM sweeps with fewer harmonics. Call maximum frequency and repetition rate showed minor changes across development. Signal duration, bandwidth, and number of harmonics decreased, whereas the maximum, minimum and bandwidth of the fundamental, and peak spectral frequency all increased. We recorded vocalizations during prolonged maternal separation and found that isolated pups called longer and at a faster rate, presumably to signal for maternal assistance. To assess how PND 13 pups alter their signals during interactions with humans we compared spontaneous and provoked vocalizations and found that provoked calls were spectrally and temporally more similar to those of younger bats suggesting that pups in distress emit signals that sound like younger bats to promote maternal assistance.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations24
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology OpenSame topicBat Biology and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207