Individual signatures in the frequency‐modulated sweep calls of African large‐eared, free‐tailed bats<i>Otomops martiensseni</i>(Chiroptera: Molossidae)
Classification
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".
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Frequency‐modulated sweep calls of Otomops martiensseni were recorded from individuals as they emerged from nine different building roosts near Durban, South Africa. Multiple analyses of call features, including duration (ms), lowest frequency (kHz), highest frequency (kHz) and frequency with most energy (kHz), indicated significant inter‐individual variation. Discriminant function analysis of call features correctly classified the calls of individuals from four roosts > 70% on 19 of 28 times. Although other species of molossids ( Chaerephon pumilus , Tadarida aegyptiaca , and one unidentified species) produced social calls as well as frequency‐modulated sweep calls, O. martiensseni produced just the latter vocalizations and they were longer and lower in frequency than those of the sympatric molossids. Other species of molossids, but not O. martiensseni , produced feeding buzzes as they attacked flying insects. The frequency‐modulated sweep calls of O. martiensseni seem to serve a communication function, but they may not be used in echolocation unlike similar calls by other molossids. Individually distinct communication signals (frequency‐modulated sweep calls) enhance communication in a species that lives in year‐round social groups (one adult male, females and dependent young).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it