MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3191839661 · doi:10.1002/pan3.10249

Combining data from consumers and traditional medicine practitioners to provide a more complete picture of Chinese bear bile markets

2021· article· en· W3191839661 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amy Hinsley, Sifan Hu, Haochun Chen, David L. Garshelis, Michael Hoffmann, Tien Ming Lee, Brendan Moyle, Yingjie Qiu, Xiangdong Ruan, Anita Kar Yan Wan, Jiemin Zhou, E.J. Milner‐Gulland

Bibliographic record

VenuePeople and Nature · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPrimate Behavior and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsumption (sociology)PharmacyQuarter (Canadian coin)Psychological interventionWildlifeMedicineFamily medicineEnvironmental healthMarketingBusinessGeographyPsychiatrySociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Understanding wildlife consumption is essential for the design and evaluation of effective conservation interventions to reduce illegal trade. This requires understanding both the consumers themselves and those who influence their behaviour. For example, in markets for wildlife‐based medicines, both consumers and medical practitioners have a role in which products are consumed. We used mixed methods to triangulate data on bear bile consumption from 3,646 members of the public, 80 pharmacy workers and 38 Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) doctors in four provincial capital cities across China. Bear bile can be sold legally in packaged TCM products made from farmed bile, or sold illegally, often as raw gallbladders from wild bears. We interviewed medical practitioners, and surveyed the public using both direct questions (DQ) and the Unmatched Count Technique (UCT), an indirect method used to improve reporting of sensitive behaviours. We applied a ‘combined’ UCT‐DQ analysis to produce a more robust consumption estimate. In all, 140 (3.8%) survey respondents directly reported recent (<3 years) bile consumption, but the combined UCT‐DQ estimate was 11.2%. In total, 14 survey respondents (0.4% sample and 10% recent consumers) self‐reported recent wild bile consumption. Almost a quarter of doctors and half of pharmacy workers had ever prescribed bile. Around half of doctors and over a quarter of pharmacy workers said that bear bile was the best medicine in certain situations. More than half of doctors and over a third of pharmacy workers thought wild bile was more effective than farmed, although we found no evidence of wild bile being formally prescribed. Consumers could name specific treatment uses of bile but almost half of recent consumers did not know the source of bile they had consumed. We show that gathering perspectives from different wildlife market actors can generate a more complete picture of trade. In China, bile consumption may be limited by its specific TCM treatment uses, but whether practitioner views on the greater effectiveness of wild bile are passed to consumers must be investigated further. With potential overlap between farmed and wild consumption, any interventions to change these markets must carefully consider how both consumers and practitioners may react. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeople and NatureSame topicPrimate Behavior and EcologyFrench-language works237,207