MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3163677723 · doi:10.60763/africarxiv/1255

The Uptake Of Wildlife Research In Botswana: A Study Of Productive Interactions

2021· dissertation· en· W3163677723 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Monica Sue Morrison

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2021
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDirektoratet for UtviklingssamarbeidMinistry of EnvironmentNational Research FoundationEuropean CommissionUnited States Agency for International DevelopmentInternational Development Research CentreGlobal Environment FacilityUniversiteit StellenboschUnited Nations Development Programme
KeywordsWildlifeGeographyEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dissertation presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Science and Technology Studies in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at Stellenbosch University. This study set out to identify and understand whether research carried out in or about Botswana Botswana has been focused on producing useful and used work in the area of wildlife and related natural resources, with a view to improving the management of these resources. The study investigated this by examining the interactions of researchers and stakeholders engaged in the management, conservation, and use of wildlife resources in northern Botswana. This work draws on the idea that broader societal impact of research can be estimated by following interactions of researchers with potential users of their research throughout the research process. This approach, based on the idea of productive interactions, acknowledges the difficulty of attributing the uptake, use, and impacts of research findings, and moves the focus of investigation from outcomes at the end point of investigation to all the stages and processes of research. Interactions of researchers with potential users of the research - its stakeholders - increase the likelihood of research findings being put to use. In the thesis, this process is viewed through the concept of an extended community of practice that demonstrates mutual engagement, joint enterprise, and shared repertoire. The study used a mixed methods case study approach including literature review, surveys of principal investigators working under Government of Botswana permits and audience members of a public outreach event, interviews, analysis of document content and bibliographic records, and ad hoc participant observation to establish patterns of interaction among researchers and stakeholders working in northern Botswana, and to investigate perceptions of research use. The study found that the northern Botswana's research community of practice consists of a strong core of researchers based in academic institutions and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) who interact with more loosely connected members of the private sector and several levels of government, and with local community members. Findings included that researchers who engage with non-academic stakeholders outside the inner core of this community of practice at early stages, and throughout the research process, are more likely to see their research applied. Their success also appears to be linked to their commitment to working longer-term in northern Botswana, which allows for more, and deeper, interactions with stakeholders. Findings of this study point to validation of the concept of productive interactions in a local community of practice, with effects that extend beyond Botswana and southern Africa. While productive interactions are already taking place in this community, many of them brokered by NGOs, increased deliberate incorporation of the productive interactions approach into the practice of government managers, researchers, and the tourism private sector is likely to increase the relevance, awareness, and uptake of the resulting findings, and to build trust and understanding among research stakeholders. Related resources: - https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14392991- https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14392988- https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14393177- https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14393225

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0150.012
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207