MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115561712 · doi:10.1017/s0266467401001481

Bat community structure at Iwokrama Forest, Guyana

2001· article· en· W2115561712 on OpenAlexaff
Burton K. Lim, Mark D. Engstrom

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Tropical Ecology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBat Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ontario Museum
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuildFrugivoreTrophic levelEcologyArtibeusBiodiversityRainforestBiomass (ecology)Species diversityBiologyRelative species abundanceAbundance (ecology)Alpha diversityStratification (seeds)Dominance (genetics)NicheGeographyHabitatAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With 86 species, Iwokrama Forest in central Guyana has the highest reported bat biodiversity for a protected area in the world. Using standardized capture data for 73 of these 86 species, we document community structure of bats in terms of species diversity, relative abundance, gross biomass, feeding guilds, vertical stratification and a trophic-size niche matrix. Based on faunal surveys in 1997, with similar amounts of effort in the forest canopy and at ground level, the greater fruit-eating bat (Artibeus lituratus) was by far the most ecologically dominant species in terms of frequency of capture and biomass. In total, frugivores comprised 70% of the species diversity and 78% of the biomass. The most common species of bat were fully partitioned in a resource niche matrix of size and trophic guild when vertical stratification was included as a variable. We conclude that resource partitioning and species packing differentially affect relative size in tropical bats, and are better summarized and analysed in three dimensions.

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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations65
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Tropical EcologySame topicBat Biology and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207