MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2278826855 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2015-0162

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs): impact on bat activity and foraging behaviour along the upper Hudson River, New York

2016· article· en· W2278826855 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Lauren A. Hooton, Yvonne A. Dzal, Nina Veselka, M. Brock Fenton

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBat Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersGeneral ElectricU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsForagingMyotis lucifugusPredationBiologyForageAbundance (ecology)EcologyHuman echolocationEptesicus fuscusInsectZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sediments of the upper Hudson River, New York, USA, contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Consequently, elevated levels of PCBs have been found in the tissues of bats and their insect prey along this region. However, it is not clear whether bat activity and foraging behaviour have been affected. To assess possible effects of PCBs on bat activity and foraging behaviour, we measured the activity of little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus (LeConte, 1831)) and hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus (Palisot de Beauvois, 1796)) along the upper Hudson River, as well as abundance of insect prey at the same locations. We also measured foraging duration and distances travelled by radio-tagged M. lucifugus. We found that bat activity and insect abundance did not differ with PCB concentration. We did, however, find that foraging behaviour along the Hudson River differed from a control site. Specifically, M. lucifugus foraging along PCB-contaminated areas of the Hudson River travelled shorter distances from their roosts and spent less time foraging than bats at an uncontaminated site. Our results show that while bats roost and forage in areas historically exposed to PCBs, this exposure has not adversely affected bat activity, foraging behaviour, or abundance of insect prey.

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 score0.559
Threshold uncertainty score0.888

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicBat Biology and Ecology Studies→French-language works237,207→