Fatal Elephant Encounters on Humans in Bangladesh: Context and Incidences
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
Here we report the context encounters of elephant attacks on humans in Bangladesh, during the period 1989 to 2012. Attack rates significantly increased over this study period. The proportion of encounters that caused deaths or injuries differed statistically significant between the two sexes (men more deaths), age groups (elder more deaths), time of the day (more deaths during night), place of casualty (more deaths outside forests), weapon used by elephants (more deaths when elephants were using both trunk and leg) and study sites. No difference was found between seasons, elephant group size, or financial status, occupation and household size of victims. Elephant family groups were mostly responsible for attacks in the north, while single bulls were more responsible in the southeast. The place of casualty (inside or outside forests), time of the day, gender and regions were all significant in explaining the variation in encounters which resulted in human deaths or injuries. Conflict mitigation approaches including incentive-, awareness-or training programs from the forest department could help to reduce the conflict between humans and elephants in Bangladesh.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it