Human Dimensions of the Reintroduction of Brazilian Birds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People's acceptability for wildlife, stakeholders' engagement and involvement are acknowledged as key factors for the success of wildlife reintroduction projects. We analyzed the main National Action Plans (NAPs) (the Brazilian management participatory instrument for the conservation of endangered species) for eight bird species and conducted an online questionnaire with researchers and practitioners involved in those species reintroduction programs. The assessment of the main Brazilian bird's reintroduction programs showed that, in general, efforts have been made to integrate local people into it. Nevertheless, the actions were disconnected, isolated and fragmented. A formal protocol, designed, discussed and approved by experts aiming to address the human dimensions (HD) of human-bird interactions (HBI), preferably to be used in each stage of the reintroduction programs, was not found. Actions considered related to human dimensions are mainly under the umbrella of environmental education interventions or campaigns, more directed to children and youth; correspond to activities performed by locals with the birds and/or captive birds facilities; or, fostering artcraft production or bird watching activities. The weak or sometimes absent human dimensions approach to this important conservation tool may indicate either the novelty for Brazilian researchers and managers of the science of human dimensions within the field of wildlife management or the lack of dialogue between natural and social sciences when wildlife conservation is at stake. Reintroductions are expensive, sensitive, and labor-intensive processes. It becomes necessary due the conservation status of the species and its implementation follows a careful research of biological, ecological and socio-institutional regional background that identifies the drivers of species extinction and plans according to it. Understanding and predicting people's behaviors and its triggers are paramount to successful reintroduction projects. Thus, making use of well-planned HD studies in HBI may be the watershed between success or failure of reintroduction programs. This study was a pioneer initiative of its kind and it aimed to provide sound recommendations for managers, researchers and practitioners to acknowledge the relevance of HD and its core role in the reintroduction of endangered bird species.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".