The conflict between vervet monkeys and farmers at the forest edge in Entebbe, Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Forty‐seven property owners in Entebbe, Uganda were questioned about vervet monkey activities on their property. Our main objective was to investigate the interactions between humans and vervet monkeys in an agricultural area adjacent to a forest zone. Other studies have reported that farms located within 300 m of a forested boundary probably incur the greatest risk of crop‐raiding. Two other factors that may influence susceptibility to vervet crop‐raiding were also examined: the types of crops grown and the types of direct preventative measures used. The effect of these two factors on vervet crop‐raiding is not straightforward. However, the distance a property is located from the forest edge is an important factor influencing vervet crop‐raiding. Surveyed gardens 200 m from the forest edge received significantly less crop‐raiding than farms located 100 m or 50 m (P = 0.040, < α = 0.05). We suggest that the development of nonagricultural activities on land directly adjacent to forested areas may reduce vervet crop‐raiding by deterring vervets from travelling greater distances from the forest edge due to increased obstacles or risks.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".