Predicting Acceptability of Jaguars and Pumas in the Atlantic Forest, Brazil
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
Jaguars and pumas are threatened species in Brazil’s Atlantic Forest, especially at the borders of protected areas. This article assessed the influence of emotions, attitudes, existence value, and agency credibility on acceptability of big cats among rural residents living adjacent to two protected areas in this forest. Data from self-administrated questionnaires (n = 326) indicated those with positive attitudes toward big cats (β = .28, p < .001), those who valued the existence of big cats (β = .14, p < .05), those who would feel sorrow if big cats disappeared (β = .21, p < .001), and those who considered the managing agency as credible (β = .16, p = .002) were more accepting of big cats. The model provided theoretical and practical insights into large carnivore conservation. For example, given the significance of agency credibility, a positive relationship between park authorities and residents is crucial for big cat conservation.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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