Resident attitudes and beliefs toward bison, disease and management in Wood Buffalo National Park
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the human dimensions (HD) of wood bison conservation in Wood Buffalo National Park of Canada (WBNP). Use of a quantitative questionnaire uncovers Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal attitudes toward wood bison, disease, and management approaches. Focus groups with local Aboriginal community members revealed themes related to bison and their management in and around WBNP. These investigative instruments show that the majority of both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal participants support the presence of wood bison in WBNP, despite prevalence of disease. This support extends to protection offered to wood bison through park management. There is low support for the destruction of the entire WBNP population as a means of managing disease. While there is consensus amongst Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal residents regarding the acceptability of various management options, Aboriginal residents consider bison more valuable for ceremonial, spiritual, economic, and food purposes than non-Aboriginal respondents. Strongly emphasized throughout the focus groups are issues of trust, communication, and participation between local Aboriginal groups and WBNP decision-makers. Wildlife managers in national parks are increasingly using public participatory approaches when making decisions in order to produce management plans that are more publicly acceptable. By identifying local perspectives regarding the management of diseased bison, this study brings interest group input into decisions regarding wildlife management, which is crucial to successfully implementing wildlife management decisions.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".