MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2218693613 · doi:10.1139/z11-106

Roosts and home ranges of spotted bats (<i>Euderma maculatum)</i> in northern Arizona

2011· article· en· W2218693613 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Carol L. Chambers, Michael J. Herder, Kei Yasuda, David G. Mikesic, Stephen Dewhurst, W. Mitchell Masters, David Vleck

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBat Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForagingInsectivoreEcologyHome rangeWoodlandRange (aeronautics)PredationBiologyVegetation (pathology)Habitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Roosting ecology and foraging behavior of spotted bats ( Euderma maculatum (J.A. Allen, 1891)) are poorly known. We captured 47 spotted bats at three locations in northern Arizona and attached radio transmitters to 16 bats to identify roosts and home ranges. We identified 14 roosts for 12 bats. Female roosts faced south; males did not select a roost aspect. Bats used a mean of 1.4 roosts during 10 days. Mean distances from capture site and nearest perennial water source to roosts were 15.1 and 5.8 km, respectively. Maximum and minimum distances from capture to roost site were 36.3 and 2.3 km, respectively. Home ranges (95% use, minimum convex polygon method) for bats averaged 297 km2, which was much larger than reported for spotted bats elsewhere in their range and other insectivorous bats. Maximum flight speed was 53 km/h. Most foraging locations were in desert scrub vegetation, but bats also used woodlands and forests, perhaps seeking seasonal prey or cooler sites to reduce water stress. Maternity roosts were remote, difficult to access, and within protected areas in northern Arizona. Foraging areas and ponds used for drinking, however, included private and public lands managed for a variety of uses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.158 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations17
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicBat Biology and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207