MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320717033 · doi:10.1016/j.onehlt.2023.100503

Is social media the new wet market? Social media platforms facilitate the online sale of bushmeat in West Africa

2023· article· en· W4320717033 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Georgia Kate Moloney, Koffi Jules Gossé, Sery Gonedelé Bi, Philippe Gaubert, Anne‐Lise Chaber

Bibliographic record

VenueOne Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaFonds de recherche du QuébecAgence Nationale de Recherches sur le Sida et les Hépatites ViralesDepartment for International Development, UK GovernmentNational Research FoundationUK Research and InnovationWorld Wildlife FundNewton FundStyrelsen för Internationellt UtvecklingssamarbeteUniversity of AdelaideInternational Development Research CentreAustralian Government
KeywordsBushmeatWildlife tradeCITESEndangered speciesWildlifePoachingGeographyIUCN Red ListGalliformesPangolinSocial mediaFisheryBiologyZoologyEcologyHabitatWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social media provides a platform for wildlife crime syndicates to access a global consumer-driven market. Whilst studies have uncovered the online trade in wildlife, the availability of wild meat (bushmeat) has not been assessed. To investigate the sale of wild meat online, we analysed 563 posts published between 2018 and 2022 from six West African Facebook pages selected using predetermined search criteria. Across 1511 images and 18 videos, we visually identified 25 bushmeat species-level taxa including mammals (six Rodentia, five Artiodactyla, three Carnivora, two Pholidota, one Primate, two Lagomorpha, one Hyracoidea), birds (three Galliformes) and reptiles (two Squamata), predominately advertised as smoked (63%) or fresh (30%) whole carcasses or portions. Among the species identified, 16% feature a status of concern on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List (Near Threatened to Endangered), 16% are listed on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES; Appendix I and II) and 24% are either fully or partially protected by local legislation. Images were commonly used as propaganda rather than to display inventory, where additional taxa protected from game hunting in West Africa, such as hornbill, were exclusively listed in captions. The advertisement of these protected and vulnerable species on the surface web indicates weak local and international legislative enforcement. Comparatively, when the same search criteria were applied to the deep web browser Tor no results were generated, reinforcing the idea that bushmeat vendors have no need to hide their activities online. Despite local and international trade restrictions, the taxa advertised feature similarities with bushmeat seizures reported in Europe, alluding to the interconnectedness of the trade facilitated by social media. We conclude that enhanced policy enforcement is essential to combat the online sale of bushmeat and mitigate the potential biodiversity and public health impacts.

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)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOne HealthSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207