MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408142401 · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2025.112159

Echolocation and dietary adaptations mediate brain-endocast covariation in bats

2025· article· en· W4408142401 on OpenAlexafffund
Camilo López‐Aguirre, M. A. Rouf Mian, John M. Ratcliffe, Mary Silcox

Bibliographic record

VenueiScience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBat Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto ScarboroughNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEndocastHuman echolocationBiologyEvolutionary biologyNeuroscienceAdaptation (eye)CommunicationZoologyPsychologyAnatomySkull

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bats exhibit remarkable ecological diversity, reflected in different species' sensory, cognitive and behavioral ecology. Bat brain volume has been linked to powered flight, laryngeal echolocation, and dietary transitions. Given the developmental trajectories and functional demands the skull and brain share, the bat skull-brain complex represents a unique means to better understand evolutionary processes and trade-offs. We assessed the brain-endocast correspondence across bats, considering whether changes in correspondence reflect ecological adaptations. We demonstrate that estimates of brain volume from both methods showed similar allometric trajectories, apart from those for cerebral cortex. Our results reveal a significant effect of diet and echolocation on brain-endocast correspondence of the cerebral cortex and olfactory bulbs, respectively. We suggest that shifts in the brain-endocast correspondence of the olfactory bulbs indicate an evolutionary trade-off between olfaction and echolocation. Our study offers a different perspective for future comparative neuroanatomical studies involving extinct and living species in museum collections.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.508
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueiScienceSame topicBat Biology and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207