MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2959710307 · doi:10.5539/enrr.v9n3p49

The Importance of Bushmeat in Household Income as a Function of Distance from Protected Areas in the Western Serengeti Ecosystem, Tanzania

2019· article· en· W2959710307 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Flora Felix Manyama, Martin Reinhardt Nielsen, Eivin Røskaft, Julius Nyahongo

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Natural Resources Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTanzania Wildlife Research InstituteUniversity of DodomaTanzania Commission for Science and Technology
KeywordsBushmeatTanzaniaSocioeconomicsGeographySnowball samplingBoundary (topology)Protected areaHousehold incomeEconomicsEcologyWildlife

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bushmeat hunting is widespread in villages adjacent to protected areas in Western Serengeti. However, little information is available about the role of bushmeat income in the household economy as a function of distance from the protected area boundary, preventing the formulation of informed policy for regulating this illegal trade. This study was conducted in three villages in Western Serengeti at distances of 3 (closest), 27 (intermediate) and 58km (furthest) from the boundary of Serengeti National Park to assess the contribution of bushmeat to household income. The sample consists of 246 households of which 96 hunted or traded bushmeat, identified using snowball sampling through the aid of local informers. The average income earned from bushmeat was significantly higher for bushmeat traders than hunters. The contribution of bushmeat to household income was significantly higher in Robanda the village closest to the protected area boundary compared to Rwamkoma and Kowak, the more distant villages. A Heckman sample-selection model reveals that household participation in hunting and trading bushmeat was negatively associated with distance to the protected area boundary and with the household head being female. Household reliance on bushmeat income was negatively associated with age and gender of the household head and distance to the protected area boundary. Hence, efforts to reduce involvement in hunting, and trading bushmeat should target male-headed households close to the protected area boundary.

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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Natural Resources ResearchSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207