Conservationists, hunters and farmers: the <scp>E</scp>uropean rabbit <scp><i>O</i></scp><i>ryctolagus cuniculus</i> management conflict in the <scp>I</scp>berian <scp>P</scp>eninsula
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Biodiversity conflicts arise when the interests of different stakeholders over common resources compete. Typically, the more parties involved, the more complex situations become. Resolution of biodiversity conflicts requires an understanding of the ecological, social and economic factors involved, in other words the interests and priorities of each stakeholder. However, in most biodiversity conflicts, many of these components remain poorly understood. As a case study, we analyse the conflict involving conservationists, hunters and farmers in the management of a native lagomorph, the E uropean rabbit O ryctolagus cuniculus , in the I berian P eninsula. We review the socio‐economic context of the rabbit management conflict, investigating the roles of the main stakeholders involved in the conflict and evaluating the ecological, economic and social factors that motivate it. We provide management directions for the short‐term amelioration of the conflict and discuss some long‐term perspectives. Overall, the interests of conservationists, hunters and farmers depend on the specific scenario where the conflict takes place. A deeper understanding of the human dimensions of the conflict will help in the design of an appropriate management model to solve this biodiversity conflict in the I berian P eninsula.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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 it