Duck Hunting and Wetland Conservation: Compromise or Synergy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Duck hunting is an issue — often controversial — that generates both benefits and costs to society. Hunters enjoy benefits from engaging in their sport, while those who have ethical concerns regarding the shooting of ducks endure costs. Some in the community fear that duck hunting puts pressure on the continued ecological viability of the hunted species, while others argue that the demand for hunting provides sufficient economic incentive for wetland conservation. Whether society as a whole should permit or restrict duck hunting is to some extent an empirical question: Are the costs to society of allowing duck hunting greater or less than the benefits it generates? Evidence presented in this paper addresses this question. The benefits enjoyed by people who hunt ducks in the upper south east of South Australia are estimated using the travel cost method. The ethical costs borne by the general community because of duck hunting are estimated using the choice modeling technique. Finally a threshold value analysis is used to assess the activities of Wetlands and Wildlife, a not‐for‐profit organization that manages wetlands in part for hunting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".