Application of maximum entropy (MaxEnt) to understand the spatial dimension of human–wildlife conflict (HWC) risk in areas adjacent to Gonarezhou National Park of Zimbabwe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The application of empirical and spatially explicit information to understand the spatial distribution of human–wildlife conflict (HWC) risk zones is increasingly becoming imperative to guide conservation planning and device mechanisms to enhance and sustain the coexistence between wildlife and humans. Spatial information on HWC is scarce in the literature, and previous studies have tended to concentrate more on the human dimensions of HWC. Although normally applied in wildlife studies, species distribution modeling (SDM) is becoming an indispensable tool to predict and visualize potential risk zones for HWC. In this study, we used maximum entropy (MaxEnt), a presence-only SDM to predict the potential distribution of HWC risk zones and to determine ecological variables that significantly explain the spatial distribution of HWC occurrences around the Gonarezhou National Park (GNP) in southeastern Zimbabwe. Our results show that HWC risk zones are not randomly distributed but tend to be concentrated along areas adjacent to protected areas that support potential overlaps and contacts between wildlife and human landscapes. A distinctive HWC high-risk zone is observed north of GNP, around areas such as Chitsa, Mpinga, and Masekesa—communities that should be prioritized for proactive mitigation interventions. In view of limited conservation resources typical of less developed countries, wildlife managers are pressed to explicitly determine zones with the highest HWC risks for effective and targeted interventions. Findings from this study thus provide a crucial baseline for identifying potentially high-risk HWC zones and the main predictors, knowledge that can be streamlined for proactive resource allocation to mitigate the HWC challenge.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".