MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2193240888 · doi:10.1139/z09-051

White-winged vampire bats (Diaemus youngi) exchange contact calls

2009· article· en· W2193240888 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Gerald G. Carter, M. Brock Fenton, Paul A. Faure

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcMaster UniversityOntario Innovation Trust
KeywordsVampireBiologyAnimal communicationWhite (mutation)ZoologyCommunicationPsychologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Temporally precise vocal exchanges, termed “antiphonal calling”, might allow pair or group members to maintain social contact with greater efficiency than when calling independently. The white-winged vampire bat ( Diaemus youngi (Jentink, 1893)) is a group-living species that produces social calls in antiphonal exchanges. Because white-winged vampire bats can use social calls to discriminate conspecifics, we suspect that one function of these vocal exchanges is to allow group members to know who is where. Here, we tested the prediction that antiphonal calling by groups of white-winged vampire bats increases when the spatial positions of conspecifics change. We recorded social calls from groups of four individually caged bats in total darkness, with each bat located in the corner of a 4 m × 4 m room. During test trials, we shifted the spatial positions of caged bats to new positions. During control trials, caged bats were displaced an equal distance but were returned to their original positions. We found that both the number of social calls and the proportion of antiphonal exchanges were greater during test trials than during control trials. These results suggest that white-winged vampire bats use antiphonal exchanges of social calls to monitor the spatial positions of conspecifics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.425
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207