Understanding local pig hunter values and practices as a means toward co-management of feral pigs ( Sus scrofa ; pua'a) in the Hawaiian Islands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Differing values between communities and government resource managers may lead to conflict, particularly when community members are not involved in decision making. Increasingly, co-management arrangements have become an important tool to increase local capacity for resource management, increase trust between diverse community groups, and foster effective stewardship. However, co-management depends upon collaboration between users and managers and the ability to understand relationships between a given resource and those who use it, even when these communities are often viewed as contravening conservation efforts. Invasive species, such as feral pigs (Sus scrofa), present particular management challenges because they damage island ecosystems but are also integral to community life ways and food systems. Based on interviews with local pig hunters in the Hawaiian Islands, we explored the social-cultural values and practices of local pig hunters, their reasons for hunting, and possibilities for greater collaboration in feral pig management. Results highlight the importance of hunting for both food and other forms of well-being and cultural perpetuation, along with opportunities for (1) expanding mechanisms of access to improve hunting opportunities for invasive species; (2) integrating rights and responsibilities to meet management objectives; and (3) improving communication to enhance collaborative arrangements. Considering the context of managing community use of an ecologically detrimental invasive species, this study offers insights to guide co-management partnerships with community groups that are sometimes perceived as opposed to invasive species control efforts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".