Co-roosting relationships are consistent across years in a bat maternity group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long-lived, group living animals have the potential to form multiyear relationships. In some temperate bat species, maternity groups break apart and rejoin both daily, as females depart to forage and select day roosts to use, and annually, as bats leave for and return from hibernation. Here, we investigated whether bats have persistent social preferences by testing whether relationships between dyads in a focal year could be predicted by previous years. We also hypothesized that experience influences social preferences and predicted that an individual's age would influence its network position, while familiarity with bats of the same cohort would drive persistent social preferences. We quantified roost co-occurrence in little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) in Salmonier Nature Park, Newfoundland, Canada both within and among years. We found that roost co-occurrence patterns of previous years still had predictive value even when accounting for potential roost fidelity. However, we found no evidence that cohort familiarity or age explained any of the variation. Overall, we found long-term patterns of association in this temperate bat species that suggest levels of social complexity akin to other large mammal species.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".