MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Field-Tested Protocol for the Measurement and Mapping of Bat Guano Deposition Rate in Caves

2024· article· en· W4401520109 on OpenAlexaff
Guy Van Rentergem, Joyce Lundberg, Donald A. McFarlane, Warren Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Chiropterologica · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBat Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuanoCaveDeposition (geology)Context (archaeology)EcologyEnvironmental sciencePhysical geographyGeographyArchaeologyBiologyPaleontologySediment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Measurement of bat guano deposition rate in caves can be an important research tool for estimation of colony size, for monitoring the record of long-term bat population trends, and for allied studies of guano invertebrate ecology, environmental contaminants, and paleoecology. However, previously published methodologies have lacked consistency. In the context of our recent studies of insectivorous bat guano deposition rates in Deer Cave, Sarawak, Borneo, we review some past studies and offer suggestions for best practises, along with proposed experimental design considerations for future studies (e.g., design of guano catchers, optimum deployment of catchers in relation to specific site characteristics, data reporting standards, and examples of mapping techniques). Consistent techniques will facilitate inter-site comparisons, and determination of intra-site changes over time. As a case study, and the first publication of detailed mapping of spatial variability in guano deposition rates, we present spatially explicit guano deposition rates for Deer Cave, ranging up to 88 g (dry weight)/m2/day in the main cave, and up to 540 g (dry weight)/m2/day in the northern extension.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.018

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa ChiropterologicaSame topicBat Biology and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207