Science and Sustainable Use: Views of Marine Turtle Conservation Experts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sustainable use is central to contemporary conservation policy as espoused by many of the major wildlife conservation organizations and is one indicator of a shift in policy away from exclusionary practices restricting access toward more inclusive ones that involve some form of resource use. As with many policies, sustainable use in theory may encounter problems in transition to practice. Problems arise based on the biology of the species or system in question and on the dynamics of the economic, social, political, and cultural systems that guide or regulate use. As a result of these problems, and of other moral and philosophical objections, opponents of applying the concept of sustainable use to wildlife are many. Based on in-depth interviews conducted with 38 conservation experts in 1995, this paper examines the views of a specific group of conservation experts (those interested in marine turtle biology and/or conservation) on the commercial consumptive use of marine turtles and their eggs. Results reveal a variety of positions on use, all of which were justified on scientific grounds. Key characteristics distinguishing between interviewees were how they dealt with uncertainty and their assumptions about economics and commerce. While denying the role of “other” issues in influencing their own opinions, experts saw opposing views as influenced by emotions. Beyond the immediate world of marine turtle conservation, results presented and conclusions reached may be indicative of the wider challenges posed by commercial use of wildlife, regardless of the species in question.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".