Conservation, Hunting Policy, and Rural Livelihoods in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hunting as a wildlife conservation tool has been the centre of much debate as climate change and increased pressure from human encroachment continue to impact wildlife species globally. As ongoing land use conflicts, natural resource extraction, and population growth threaten habitat, leaders face a dilemma around how to balance sustainable land use management while supporting rural economies. We explored the role of hunting in conservation and looked critically at the perspectives of hunters and those involved in hunting in the western Canadian province of British Columbia. A community-based participatory research methodology guided this study, and we collected data through semi-structured interviews with resident hunters, conservation officers, wildlife biologists, guide outfitters, hunting suppliers, and Indigenous hunters. The results can help inform inclusive policies that balance the needs of local peoples, communities, and conservation in rural regions. Diverse hunting stakeholders have unique knowledge of regional lands and wildlife management practices that are integral to socio-economic and environmental sustainability in rural regions. Keywords: hunting, conservation, community-based participatory research, rural livelihoods; British Columbia
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 | 0.001 | 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".