MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6967105259 · doi:10.5066/p9ti6mk3

Hawaii Island Hawaiian hoary bat foraging location data 2004-2010

2019· dataset· en· W6967105259 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUSGS DOI Tool Production Environment · 2019
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForagingRange (aeronautics)Endangered speciesTracking (education)Global Positioning SystemManateeLocation data

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hawaiian hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) on Hawaii island were surveyed intermittently from 2004-2010. This data release is a single table of resulting bat location estimates, including date, time, coordinates for each location, and presumed bat activity at the time of collection. Nightly movements were documented for 30 Hawaiian hoary bats along the windward (eastern) side of the island of Hawaii. Each bat was fitted with a colored, split ring forearm band (Size X3; A. C. Hughes, Hampton Hill, United Kingdom) for long-term individual recognition and with a radiotransmitter (BD-2C model from Holohil Systems, Carp, Ontario, Canada). Bats were then released at the point of capture. Output from the transmitters was monitored with tracking receivers and 3-element Yagi antennae. Tracking stations were established at points within 5-300 m of activity centers for each bat and the tracking station coordinates recorded using Garmin GPS 12XL units (Garmin Corporation, Olathe, Kansas). Receiver stations were moved as necessary to improve reception. For a flying bat, bat locations were derived from a single bearing and signal strength (from Bonaccorso et al. 2015). References: Bonaccorso, F. J., C. M. Todd, A. C. Miles, and P. M. Gorresen (2015). Foraging range movements of the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat, Lasiurus cinereus semotus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). Journal of Mammalogy 96:64-71.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.081

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.216 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUSGS DOI Tool Production EnvironmentFrench-language works237,207