MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313429964 · doi:10.1071/wr22005

‘It’s a people problem, not a goat problem.’ Mitigating human–mountain goat interactions in a Canadian Provincial Park

2023· article· en· W4313429964 on OpenAlexaffabout
Josie V. Vayro, Emalee A. Vandermale, Courtney W. Mason

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWildlifeHuman–wildlife conflictContext (archaeology)National parkWildlife managementGeographyEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental protectionEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context Wildlife viewing is a primary reason people visit parks and protected areas. However, high rates of visitation increase the potential for interactions between humans and wildlife. This close proximity of humans and wildlife can lead to habituation to human presence and pose a threat to both animals and humans. Aims We describe human–mountain goat interactions in Cathedral Provincial Park (CPP), in British Columbia (BC), Canada, and examine management and mitigation strategies to reduce these interactions. Methods This project was a collaboration with BC Parks. We used community-based participatory research methodologies, conducting interviews and surveys from July 2020 to November 2021 with park visitors, staff, and researchers. Key results Most respondents encountered mountain goats in the park and understood the park’s messaging; however, not all respondents took the necessary steps to reduce encounters. We recommend further education efforts focused on formal staff training and improved infrastructure in the park. Conclusions Our results can be used to inform management decisions related to human–wildlife interactions, primarily in parks and protected areas. On a proximate level, we suggest further educational efforts and improved infrastructure in the park to help overcome perceived lack of action by some participants. Ultimately, there is a need to incorporate human aspects of human–wildlife interactions into management decisions aimed at addressing potential and existing problems. Implications Using a multitude of approaches to management, informed by biological, social, and cultural knowledge, can improve responses and mitigation strategies in human–wildlife interactions. Collaboration among different stakeholders allows for the exchange of ideas and innovations that can contribute to positive movement towards coexistence of humans and wildlife in parks and recreational areas.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0200.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife ResearchSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207