Who swarms with whom? Group dynamics of Myotis bats during autumn swarming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For many animal taxa, group-living is a strategy where the cohesion provided by groups confers fitness benefits to individuals. Bats are highly gregarious with many species living in groups with complex social structures. During the summer, many temperate species are sexually segregated among roosts where females have been found to exhibit dynamic social structures and males remain understudied. We studied the group dynamics of little brown and northern Myotis bats ( Myotis lucifugus and Myotis septentrionalis ) during autumn swarming, a period for which social interactions are largely unknown. Using capture–mark–recapture surveys, we characterized the occurrence and frequency of age and sex groups occurring at swarms. Within a night, young-of-the-year associated more often with other bats than did adult males and females. Further, they associated more often with other young-of-the-year than adults. We found no evidence to support the maternal guidance hypothesis predicting that there would be associations between mother–offspring pairs. Adult male and female bats associated less frequently with each other and were captured alone most often. When males were captured in groups, these groups were more likely to be composed of multiple males and in M. lucifugus , males had preferred male associates they grouped with over multiple nights. Groups formed during the autumn swarming season may represent cohort groups of young bats learning of the location of sites and groups of males that are potentially cooperating to secure more mating opportunities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".