MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384300152 · doi:10.1007/s10344-023-01707-w

A rapid assessment of the illegal otter trade in Vietnam

2023· article· en· W4384300152 on OpenAlexaff
Lalita Gomez, Minh D. T. Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Wildlife Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Conservation and Criminology Analyses
Canadian institutionsWildlife Conservation Society Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWildlife tradeCITESOtterWildlifeEnforcementPopulationPoachingBusinessInternational tradeLaw enforcementEndangered speciesScrutinyGeographyFisheryEcologyLawBiologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Vietnam is home to four species of otters, and while population numbers are unknown, they are thought to be rare and in decline. Studies on the illegal otter trade in Asia have shown Vietnam to be a key end use destination for illegally sourced live otters for the pet trade and otter fur for the fashion industry. This study focused on the otter trade in Vietnam through seizure data analysis and an online survey, revealing the persistent trade of otters in Vietnam in violation of national wildlife laws and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). We found a substantial quantity of otter fur products for sale though CITES permits for such products were lacking, indicating illegal origins. Similarly, all four species of otters are protected in Vietnam, yet they were openly available for sale online in violation of national wildlife laws. Clearly, the online trade of wildlife and wildlife products in Vietnam requires greater monitoring, regulation, and enforcement to prevent the advertising and trade of illicit wildlife. In-depth scrutiny of online sellers and product sourcing is particularly warranted. To support enforcement efforts, revision of policies and laws is needed to hold social media and other online advertising companies accountable for enabling the illegal trade of wildlife.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.915

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Wildlife ResearchSame topicWildlife Conservation and Criminology AnalysesFrench-language works237,207