Evidence of social preferences in big brown bats (<i>Eptesicus</i> <i>fuscus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among social species, iterative interactions may lead to social preferences among group-mates and often are associated with increased mating opportunities or improved indirect fitness benefits. Although preferential associations have been documented in multiple species, this phenomenon has never been empirically studied in bats—the second largest order of mammals, where many of the 1200+ species live in groups of tens to hundreds of individuals. Given the current understanding of the social behaviour exhibited in this species, we explored the possibility that adult female big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus (Beauvois, 1796)) show preferential association between group-mates using a pairwise choice design with individuals from a captive colony. Focal individuals were placed in a Y-maze and were given free choice of two familiar conspecifics. We measured the time focal individuals spent in close proximity to each conspecific. Our results indicate that some bats exhibit preferential association between group-mates, as multiple individuals spent significantly more time in close proximity to one conspecific versus another, despite randomizing the position of stimulus bats between trials. Given the frequent and long-term associations between group members of this species, social preferences could play a significant role in the outcomes of their long-term fitness.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 teacher head, 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".