MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911419790 · doi:10.5539/enrr.v9n1p54

Household Reliance on Environmental Income in the Western Serengeti Ecosystem, Tanzania

2019· article· en· W2911419790 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Moses Titus Kyando, Julius Nyahongo, Eivin Røskaft, Martin Reinhardt Nielsen

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Natural Resources Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of DodomaEuropean Commission
KeywordsTanzaniaEcosystemGeographySocioeconomicsEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceEcologyEnvironmental planningEconomicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pressures on protected areas (PAs) in Tanzania are increasing through the extractive use by surrounding communities. Understanding how environmental reliance varies in relation to distance from PAs and in relation to household’s socio-economic characteristics is important for PAs management and decision of poverty alleviation strategies. This study therefore aimed to quantifying the reliance on cash environmental income as a share in total household income over a gradient of distance from PA boundaries in Western Serengeti and evaluates how it is influenced by socio-economic characteristics. Data was collected through a semi-structured questionnaire of 150 households, randomly selected in three villages. Results indicate that environmental cash-income varies from 21.3% to 45.2% of the total annual cash-income, representing on average 37.8% of the total annual cash-income of all households surveyed. Households closest to the boundary of Serengeti National Park (SNP) are relatively more reliant on environmental income than those located relatively far. Environmental cash-income reliance is associated with household socio-economic factors including distance from SNP boundary, household wealth rank and absolute income from off-farm activities. The main sources of environmental cash-income are fuel-wood, construction materials and wild foods. Reducing environmental reliance requires promotion of off-farm activities, improved wood fuel stoves electricity and alternative sources of fuels.

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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Natural Resources ResearchSame topicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207