MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4400723214 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2024-0036

Dietary flexibility of insectivorous bats, <i>Eptesicus fuscus</i> and <i>Myotis lucifugus</i>, during <i>Magicicada</i> spp. Brood X emergence

2024· article· en· W4400723214 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zackary Isenhour, Garrett L Harris, Richard Lee Stewart, Ekaterina D. Hampton, Michael R. Scafini, Gregory G. Turner, Sherri E Bergsten

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBat Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPennsylvania Game Commission
KeywordsBiologyInsectivoreEptesicus fuscusMyotis lucifugusPredationZoologyBroodHuman echolocationEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emergence of periodical cicadas, Magicicada spp. Davis, 1925, presents an ideal opportunity to study dietary flexibility and selective feeding behavior of bats. It is known that a wide array of taxa prey upon Magicicada spp., but few bat species have been documented to consume them. When larger than typical prey items, such as periodical cicadas, become abundant for a short time frame, insectivorous bats may exhibit alteration in dietary selection that provides insight into capacity and conditions for feeding. Evidence of Magicicada spp. consumption was detected in guano via polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and physical detection in both Eptesicus fuscus (Palisot de Beauvois, 1796) and Myotis lucifugus (Le Conte, 1831), two bat species of different sizes and with different dietary profiles. The consumption of these larger prey items, when they are locally abundant, supports a display of opportunistic behavior and diet flexibility in these two bat 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 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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