Differences in management action acceptability for coyotes in a National Park
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Successful wildlife management often depends on public acceptance of wildlife control methods. We explored the acceptability and amount of consensus among local residents, park staff, and visitors for coyote ( Canis latrans ) management in Cape Breton Highlands National Park of Canada (NPC). We collected data near Cape Breton Highlands NPC, where there has been an increase in human–coyote conflict. Local residents were mailed a questionnaire ( n = 578; 72% return rate) in 2011. Park staff completed the questionnaire ( n = 124; 85% return rate) during 2011 and visitors were interviewed on trails and given a mail‐back questionnaire during 2011 and 2012 ( n = 375; 51% return rate). The Potential for Conflict Index was used to examine differences in acceptability among the 3 groups. Acceptability of different management options was evaluated for 3 situations: 1) a coyote crossed the trail; 2) a coyote approached a person; and 3) a snarling coyote approached a person. All 3 groups tended to prefer nonlethal management options, but as the scenarios increased in threat level, lethal and more invasive options became more acceptable. Understanding which management options were more acceptable in different contexts facilitates informed decision‐making when humans and coyotes come into conflict. Contrasting public(s) views against those of managers highlighted situations whereby problems might occur. © 2015 The Wildlife Society.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".