Forms and Trends of Encroachments in Cross River National Park of Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forms and trends of encroachments were investigated in Cross River National Park (CRNP) of Nigeria with the view of ascertaining the prevailing forms, trends, strategies of poaching and ecological consequences of illegal exploitations on the state of species in the biodiversity hotspot; that is contiguous with Korup and Takamanda national parks of Cameroon. Data for this study were obtained through personal observations, administrative record, structured questionnaires and in depth interview with experienced members of park protection staff who have been in the park for a minimum period of five years and are therefore quite knowledgeable about wildlife management and protection in the park. A set of questionnaire was randomly administered to 40 Park protection staff of CRNP in other to examine the forms, trends, intensity and reasons for encroachment in the park. Data on trend of arrest being an indicator of encroachment was collected from the administrative record of CRNP. Data obtained were analyzed using descriptive statistics in form of percentages and frequency of counts. Hunting (100%) and collection of Non Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) (75%) were implicated as the highest form of encroachment in the park while fuel wood collection (15%) was the least. The highest and lowest forms of arrest between 1991 and 2014 were 12.8% and 0.2% respectively. The least annual arrest (0.2%) recorded between 1991 and 2014 was in 1994 and 1995 respectively. Out of 616 arrests made between 1991 and 2014 34.%, 28.9% and 26.1% were for logging, hunting and collection of NTFPs respectively while aiding and abetting had the least record of only 1.6%. Nevertheless most respondents implicated households of host and enclave communities as encroachers (85.00%) and aiders of encroachments (95.0%) in CRNP. Cross River National Park is porous to non-seasonal encroachment as the anti poaching operations therein are ineffective.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".