Population model for the greater one-horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the largest wild populations of the highly endangered Indian rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) resides in and around Royal Chitwan National Park (RCNP) in Nepal.Unfortunately, rhino poaching in the park has increased dramatically since 1998.This paper presents a demographic model of the Royal Chitwan rhino population to describe the effect of poaching on the population, explore the validity of a decreasing carrying capacity in the park, and provide input to an overarching bioeconomic model.We used a simple, logistic-style model to describe the rhino population.Starting with values available from the literature, three sets of best-fit parameter values were chosen.We then used these three model variations to indicate the size the RCNP rhino population would have been had the extensive poaching between 1998 and 2003 not occurred.All three model variations suggested that the current rhino population was below the park's capacity and revealed the strong negative impact of poaching.These results supported the vital importance of continued anti-poaching efforts in Royal Chitwan.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".