Evaluating odour and urinary sex preferences in the big brown bat (<i>Eptesicus fuscus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Olfactory cues provide detailed information to mammals regarding conspecifics. Bats may identify species, colony membership, and individuals using olfaction. Big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus (Palisot de Beauvois, 1796)) live in mixed-sex colonies and must differentiate between sexes to locate mates. We hypothesized that odour cues convey information about sex. In experiment 1, adult E. fuscus were recorded exploring a Y-maze that contained general body odours sampled from male or female conspecifics. One group of subjects was habituated to the Y-maze prior to experimental trials, whereas a second group was not. Bat exploration and the proportion of time spent near each scent were used as preference indicators for the body odour of a particular sex. Experiment 2 followed similar procedures except the odour cue tested was urine from either male or female conspecifics and without Y-maze habituation. Results found no evidence that E. fuscus prefer the body odours of a given sex, but females did prefer the odour of male urine. Non-habituated animals in experiment 1 were more likely to explore the Y-maze and approach a stimulus scent compared with habituated bats. These findings have important implications for courtship and mating behaviour in bats, as well for designing future behavioural studies.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".