THE EFFECTS OF VISUAL CUES ON THE COLLISIONS OF FREE-FLYING MYOTIS LUCIFUGUS WITH OBSTACLES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Free-flying insectivorous bats occasionally collide with stationary objects that they should easily detect. These collisions often occur when lights are on suggesting that bats that collide may attend to visual sensory input over echolocation. To investigate the role of visual cues on the collisions of free-flying Myotis lucifugus with stationary objects, I set up obstacles at an Ontario swarming site. I used combinations of light intensities, obstacle fabrics that were not visually alike, and conspecific distress calls to verify that the bats in my study were not distracted by distress calls, and appeared to orient by vision when visual cues were available. Initially bats collided most in the light and least with luminous visible fabrics, but the order of collisions changed in mid to late August, coincident with the start of the second phase of swarming. My findings suggest that visual cues are more important for free-flying bats than previously recognized, and further controlled field studies are necessary to understand the integration of multi- sensory modalities during orientation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".