Group size and dispersal ploys: an analysis of commuting behaviour of the pond bat (<i>Myotis</i> <i>dasycneme</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Like most bat species, the pond bat (Myotis dasycneme (Boie, 1825)) lives in roosts more or less in the centre of their foraging habitat and are considered central-place foragers. Commuting routes, or flyways, between roosts and hunting areas have an essential ecological function for bats. We summarize the results of research performed on the commuting routes of pond bats between 2002 and 2009. We give, among others, a description on how bats disperse, how to recognize a commuting route, and details about the effort needed to make a complete survey of one commuting route. Furthermore, we make a relation between number of animals on the route and size of their respective roost. The results suggest pond bats are not completely reliant on waterways for reaching their foraging habitat; they use directional dispersal, following commuting routes over waterways in combination with shortcuts over land. These results provide information that can be used to better understand how bats use their commuting routes. Also, the knowledge can be applied to survey work.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".