BENEFITS OF LIVING IN A BUILDING: BIG BROWN BATS (EPTESICUS FUSCUS) IN ROCKS VERSUS BUILDINGS
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
Individuals of some species of bats roost in human-made structures despite the apparent availability of natural roosts. We compared patterns of thermoregulation in relation to microclimate and compared reproductive timing for maternity colonies of big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) roosting in natural and building roosts in the prairies of southeastern Alberta. During pregnancy, bats roosting in buildings used torpor less frequently than did rock-roosting bats, but achieved lower body temperatures when torpid. Less-frequent use of torpor leaves more active days for fetal development, and bats in building roosts gave birth earlier than those in rock roosts. We observed predators and predation in rock roosts, but not in building roosts, and suggest that bats roosting in rocks use shallower torpor to remain vigilant. Patterns of torpor use suggest that bats in buildings save more energy than rock-roosting individuals by roosting in the warmer microenvironments of buildings and by achieving lower body temperatures when ambient conditions are cold and foraging is not productive. The warmer building roosts are also conducive to juvenile growth, and young building-roosting bats fledged 1–2 weeks before rock bats. We propose that advantages for bats roosting in buildings (lower predation risk, earlier births, faster juvenile growth rates, and increased energy savings) lead to greater long-term reproductive success for building-roosting bats and make buildings preferred roosts.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it