MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2288847547 · doi:10.1111/acv.12259

Correlates of wildlife hunting in indigenous communities in the Pastaza province, Ecuadorian Amazonia

2016· article· en· W2288847547 on OpenAlexafffund
Cristian Vasco, Anders Sirén

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Conservation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsWestern Forest ProductsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaSecretaría de Educación Superior, Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación
KeywordsAmazon rainforestWildlifeIndigenousLivelihoodGeographyBiodiversitySocioeconomic statusSocioeconomicsTobit modelAgroforestryEnvironmental protectionEcologyAgricultureDemographyBiologyPopulationEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Wild meat is an important source of dietary protein and fat for many indigenous peoples in Amazonia. However, rates of wildlife harvest are often unsustainable, threatening not only biodiversity but also the food security of indigenous peoples. During the last decades, Ecuadorian Amazonia has undergone profound socioeconomic changes which have significantly altered peoples' livelihood strategies. Little is known, however, how such changes have affected wildlife hunting. Based on data from a household survey, this paper analyzes the socioeconomic drivers of wildlife hunting among indigenous peoples in Pastaza, in the Ecuadorian Amazonia. The results of a random‐effect tobit analysis reveal that, wealthier households which have higher shares of off‐farm and non‐farm employment tend to harvest smaller amounts of wild meat. A probable explanation to this is that having a permanent and well‐paid job implies an increased opportunity cost of time, leading to a decrease in the time spent hunting and, therefore, decreased wildlife harvests.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal ConservationSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207