ROOST SELECTION BY FOREST-LIVING FEMALE BIG BROWN BATS (EPTESICUS FUSCUS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies of forest-dwelling bats have identified physical features of trees and forests that correlate with the presence of bats by comparing roost sites to paired, randomly selected sites. This method may be limited if the absence of bats from random sites cannot be confirmed. Our purpose was to address roosting ecology of female big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) using a different approach. We quantified relative use of trees with 3 different types of cavity openings (long crevices, multiple holes, or single holes) and compared the relative use of these potential roosts to the availability of each roost type in the study area. Bats used trees with multiple holes and crevices significantly more often than expected based on their availability and trees with single holes less often than expected. Crevice roosts had significantly larger cavities than did single holes and roosting-group size was positively correlated with cavity volume. No relationship was found between cavity volume and tree height or stem diameter of roost trees, 2 variables that have been reported to correlate with roost selection in other studies of forest bats. Examination of our data suggests that the volume of roost cavities may be an important selection criterion for colonial, forest-living bats and that standard interpretations of the roost versus random-tree approach may not accurately identify patterns of roost selection in some systems.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".