MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313637572 · doi:10.53562/ajcb.71823

A Brief Overview of the Online Bird Trade in Vietnam

2022· article· en· W4313637572 on OpenAlexaff
Boyd T.C. Leupen

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Journal of Conservation Biology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Conservation and Criminology Analyses
Canadian institutionsWildlife Conservation Society Canada
FundersFondation Segré
KeywordsVietnameseEnforcementGeographyWildlife tradeFree trade agreementBusinessGovernment (linguistics)International tradeBiologyEcologyFree tradeWildlife

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unsustainable commercial exploitation poses a serious threat to many of Vietnam’s native bird species. Here we report on a survey of the country’s online bird trade, conducted across four major online platforms. Between 9 March and 3 April 2020, a total of 434 posts were recorded, accounting for 834 individuals of at least 50 species, ten of which have not been recorded in Vietnamese trade before. Ninety-two percent of the recorded species were native to Vietnam and 18% (n=9) of the species, accounting for 15% (n=115) of the recorded individuals, are protected under Vietnamese law. Recorded prices ranged between VND16,667 (~US$0.7) and VND7 million (~US$303), depending on the species and on a bird’s specific singing qualities. The highest trade numbers were found on Chợ Tốt (186 posts, 335 birds), followed by Facebook (161 posts, 325 birds), Chợ Vinh (82 posts, 169 birds) and Chim Cảnh Đất Việt (5 posts, 5 birds). The scale of the observed trade appears to confirm a partial shift towards online platforms in Vietnam’s bird trade, or at least an increase in the use of online platforms to trade wild birds. In anticipation of a further development of this trend, we urge the Government of Vietnam to improve regulations and to take greater enforcement action against illegal online trading practices.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Journal of Conservation BiologySame topicWildlife Conservation and Criminology AnalysesFrench-language works237,207