Roosts and food supplies ameliorate the impact of a bad summer on reproduction by the bat,<i>Myotis lucifugus</i>LeConte (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the Chautauqua Institution in southwestern New York State, the period between May and September in 1991 differed in rainfall and temperature from the same period in 1992. 1992 was significantly cooler and wetter than 1991, reflecting the global impact of the 1991 eruption of Mt Pinatubo. Some buildings at the Institution are used as nursery roosts by thousands of Myotis lucifugus (little brown bats) and in one roost, maximum temperatures were significantly lower in 1992 than in 1991. There were no significant differences between these two summers in the diet of M. lucifugus, which mainly comprised aquatic insects that did not differ significantly in availability. There were significant differences in the numbers of bats using some roosts between years, with more bats in larger colonies and fewer in smaller colonies in 1992. This suggests greater use of clustering by roosting bats, which was supported by direct observation. There were no significant differences between years in the timing of reproduction (incidence of pregnant, lactating and post-lactating females or the appearance of volant subadults). We conclude that roosts and food supply appear to insulate M. lucifugus from the effects of cool, wet weather.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".