Human need in rural developing areas: perceptions of wildlife conservation experts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
‘Sustainable use’ and ‘community‐based conservation’ are two contemporary concepts in wildlife conservation policy. Their rise represents a shift away from traditional conservation techniques, and a merging of narratives about conservation and development. While policy statements by major conservation organisations emphasise the necessity of the shift, evidence to date suggests that, in practice, implementation of these concepts has been limited. This paper considers the extent to which sustainable use and community‐based conservation have been accepted (or not) by a specific group of conservation experts, and what this level of acceptance implies for conservation in practice. Based on in‐depth interviews with experts in marine turtle biology and/or conservation policy, the paper considers the willingness and ability of such experts to incorporate human development needs and issues into conservation activities. The suitability of conservation organisations as promoters of rural development, and implications of their further involvement as such, are discussed. Les principes de ‘l'utilisation durable’ et de ‘la protection de l'environnement par la communauté’ sont deux concepts courants dans la politique de la defense de la flore et de la faune. La montée de ces concepts représente un écart par rapport aux techniques traditionnelles de la défense de l'environnement, ainsi qu'un lieu de convergence ou les récits sur la protection des ressources naturelles, et sur développement se fusionnent. Bien que les déclarations de principe faites par d'importants organismes de protection soulignent la nécessité de poursuivre cette nouvelle orientation, il y a de bonnes raisons de penser que la mise en pratique de ces concepts a été, jusqu'a présent, trés limitée. Cet article traitera de la mesure d'acceptation accordée à ces deux concepts, au sein d'un groupe spécifique de spécialistes en défense des ressources naturelles, ainsi que les répercussions de ce niveau d'acceptation pour la pratique de la protection. A partir d'entrevues en profondeur menées avec des experts en la biologie des tortues marines et/ou en la politique de leur protection, l'article examinera la volonté, ainsi que la capacité, de tels experts d'intégrer les exigences humaines aux activités de protection. Seront également considérées la question de l'aptitude de ces organismes de protection à promouvoir le développement rurale, et les consequences possibles de leur implication continue dans celui‐ci.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".