Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Wildlife conservation and management occurs across the world through many different mechanisms and underlying principles. North America has developed a unique and successful process coined the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. A key outcome of this model is that wildlife science informs management decisions, which are made by government officials in the public’s trust. If a species undergoes some form of legal take, managers are often required to ensure it is done responsibly with empirical evidence and consideration of ecological and societal objectives. Recent research suggests that 60% of wildlife management systems in Canada and the United States were not using science to guide their decisions, as they contained fewer than half of what they referred to as four “fundamental hallmarks of science”: measurable objectives, evidence, transparency, and independent review. We borrow from their framework and expand on it by evaluating whether white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) management in the northeastern United States includes the essential elements of a structured decision-making process. Our aim is to evaluate the regional management of a species that receives considerable focus to better understand whether the ideals of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation are being implemented by way of a logical, transparent, and science-based decision-making process. Of the 11 states evaluated, seven had published a white-tailed deer management plan. Of these seven, we found that the “hallmarks” and most structured decision-making components were present, and the information collected was being used to inform decisions. Our findings indicate four main ways white-tailed deer management may be improved in the northeast United States: 1) states without a management plan should develop one, 2) states should incorporate an external review process, 3) states could consider alternative actions for each measurable objective and their consequences, and 4) states need to consider tradeoffs among multiple and possibly conflicting objectives. Our recommendations should lead to increased management transparency and build public support. Additionally, a key principle of The North America model of Wildlife Conservation is that science is the proper tool for discharging wildlife policy. Using science to understand population abundances and dynamics is especially critical in managing harvested wildlife. Tracking population changes allows resource managers to adapt regulations to ensure populations are maintained. In Rhode Island, USA white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are annually harvested, but there is no systematic annual population estimation to track changes, which may put the population and forest ecosystem at risk. Our objective
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».