MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283029513 · doi:10.3389/fcosc.2022.850309

Spatio-Temporal Patterns and Source-Dispersion Modeling Towards Sloth Bear–Human Conflict Management in Central India

2022· article· en· W4283029513 on OpenAlexaff
Sankarshan Chaudhuri, Meghna Bandyopadhyay, Rajasekar Rajaraman, Kalyanasundaram Sankar, Sambandam Sathyakumar, Ramesh Krishnamurthy

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Conservation Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlothWildlifeGeographyEcologyOccupancyHuman–wildlife conflictBiodiversityContext (archaeology)BiologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impact of humans on biodiversity, in the form of the spatially extensive occurrence of humans and subsequent habitat degradation, leads to negative interactions between humans and native wildlife. However, knowledge of the spatial and temporal interface between humans and wildlife is necessary to understand the root cause of such negative interactions, yet considerably understudied in the context of human-dominated landscapes in south and south-eastern Asia. We took this opportunity, gaining insights on seasonal spatial interaction and spatio-temporal overlap between sloth bears ( Melursus ursinus ) and humans, and subsequently predicted the conflict source sites and dispersion (i.e., hotspots) based on the robust geographic profiling (GP) method in the Sanjay Tiger Reserve (STR), a human-dominated landscape of central India. Detection data of sloth bear and human were obtained from camera trap survey conducted for two years (2017–2018) and records of conflict incidents (2009–2019) were collected from forest department. We found that sloth bears can co-occur with humans independently of seasons, based on occupancy models. However, during summer, higher temporal overlap (Δ 4 = 0.46) and lower spatial overlap (0.31) were observed between sloth bears and humans. Contrastingly, lower temporal overlap (Δ 4 = 0.29) and higher spatial overlap (0.44) were observed between the same two during winter. The activity patterns of sloth bears and humans differed significantly across seasons and within the same species in different seasons. Our findings indicated that significant changes in human activity, especially during summer, increased the likelihood of sloth bear-human interaction and subsequent conflict incidents. The mapping of conflict source and dispersion (with high accuracy) also predicted a greater probability of conflict during summer, compared to winter, and thus showed the successful application of GP models in this field. Also, camera trap data alone were able to predict the occurrence of hotspots, demonstrating the use of camera trap records in the successful prediction of source-dispersion of conflict. This study would be useful for decision-makers to alleviate sloth bear–human conflict based on insights on seasonal variation of spatio-temporal overlap between the two and direct conservation efforts accordingly.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Conservation ScienceSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207