Habitat Suitability and Conflict Zone Mapping for the Blue Bull (Boselaphus tragocamelus) across Nepal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rapidly changing environmental conditions (bioclimatic, anthropogenic, topographic, and vegetation-related variables) are likely to alter the spatial distribution of flora and fauna. To understand the influence of environmental variables on the Blue bull’s distribution and to identify potential conflict zones, the habitat suitability analysis of the Blue bull was performed using ensemble modeling. We modelled the distribution of the Blue bull using an extensive database on the current distribution of the Blue bull and selected 15 ecologically significant environmental variables. We used ten species distribution modeling algorithms available in the BIOMOD2 R package. Among the ten algorithms, the Random Forest, Maxent, and Generalized linear model had the highest mean true skill statistics scores, ensuring better model performance, and were considered for further analysis. We found that 22,462.57 km2 (15.26%) of Nepal is suitable for the Blue bull. Slope, precipitation seasonality, and distance to the road are the environmental variables contributing the most to the distribution of Blue bull. Of the total predicted suitable habitats, 86% lies outside protected areas and 55% overlaps with agricultural land. Thus, we recommend that the future conservation initiatives including appropriate conflict mitigation measures should be prioritized equally in both protected areas and outside protected areas to ensure the species’ survival in the region.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".