Patterns of genome size diversity in bats (order Chiroptera)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite being a group of particular interest in considering relationships between genome size and metabolic parameters, bats have not been well studied from this perspective. This study presents new estimates for 121 "microbat" species from 12 families and complements a previous study on members of the family Pteropodidae ("megabats"). The results confirm that diversity in genome size in bats is very limited even compared with other mammals, varying approximately 2-fold from 1.63 pg in Lophostoma carrikeri to 3.17 pg in Rhinopoma hardwickii and averaging only 2.35 pg ± 0.02 SE (versus 3.5 pg overall for mammals). However, contrary to some other vertebrate groups, and perhaps owing to the narrow range observed, genome size correlations were not apparent with any chromosomal, physiological, flight-related, developmental, or ecological characteristics within the order Chiroptera. Genome size is positively correlated with measures of body size in bats, though the strength of the relationships differs between pteropodids ("megabats") and nonpteropodids ("microbats").
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".