MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994980304 · doi:10.1002/ecs2.2967

The effectiveness of hazing African lions as a conflict mitigation tool: implications for carnivore management

2019· article· en· W2994980304 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEcosphere · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNature ConservancyRobertson FoundationPanthera
KeywordsCarnivoreLivestockNational parkGeographyPantheraPredationLivelihoodSocioeconomicsEcologyBiologyAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Human–carnivore conflict ( HCC ) represents one of the greatest threats to rural livelihoods and the persistence of large carnivores. The application of aversive conditioning, the association of unpleasant stimuli with the occurrence of unwanted behaviors, to mitigate HCC has achieved mixed results within and across species, making a better understanding of the factors driving intervention success critical to inform management practices. We explored the degree to which the chasing of African lions ( Panthera leo ) out of no tolerance zones conditions lion behavior to reduce their rate of return into community lands or rate of repeated livestock killing, providing evidence‐based understanding of program outcomes. We used data from 15 global positioning system ( GPS )‐collared lions adjacent to Hwange National Park, Zimbabwe, with each lion receiving 0–17 conditioning treatments, and analyzed the data using recurrent event survival analysis and logistic regression. Chases were most successful (i.e., lion pushed out of the no tolerance zone by sunrise of the following day) in the dry season (i.e., when wild prey were more predictable), in areas closer to the park, and for individuals from smaller and more stable prides (i.e., had not lost a pride male within six months). Adult females and subadult males were more likely than adult males to reenter community lands, and subadult males were most likely to repeatedly depredate livestock. While livestock depredation has decreased since program initiation, the individuals in this study were overall not less likely to enter community lands or depredate livestock in response to chases when chases were considered isolated events. Rather, it was the consistency of deterrence events that proved most important in reducing livestock depredations, likely because of a stronger reinforcement between the undesired behavior and the negative stimulus. However, lions that had previously habitually killed livestock had greater depredation rates even after several conditioning treatments. Aversive conditioning holds promise in the management of carnivores that depredate livestock, but intervention must be consistent, ideally early in the development of problem behaviors, to maximize intervention effectiveness. Methods that separate wildlife from people (i.e., fencing, livestock enclosure fortification), in combination with aversive conditioning, may be needed to provide a sustainable, long‐term solution.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.221 · 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