MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389440362 · doi:10.1017/s0030605323000704

Linking crop availability, forest elephant visitation and perceptions of human–elephant interactions in villages bordering Ivindo National Park, Gabon

2023· article· en· W4389440362 on OpenAlex
Walter Mbamy, Christopher Beirne, Graden Froese, Médard Obiang Ebanéga, John R. Poulsen

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOryx · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique
KeywordsHuman–wildlife conflictWildlifeGeographyLoggingAfrican elephantAsian elephantNational parkEndangered speciesContext (archaeology)Wildlife conservationAgroforestryEnvironmental resource managementEcologyElephasHabitatForestryBiologyEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Feeding by Critically Endangered forest elephants Loxodonta cyclotis in rural plantations is a conservation issue in Gabon, but studies characterizing drivers of spatiotemporal patterns of human–elephant interactions remain sparse, hindering mitigation. In this study, we use GPS tracking data from two elephants to characterize temporal patterns of village visitation, and surveys of 101 local farmers across seven villages to determine local patterns of crop planting and harvesting and of human–elephant interactions. Local farmers' perceptions of elephant visitations and empirical data on such visits were positively correlated with local crop availability. However, considering the two elephants separately revealed that the correlations were driven by just one individual, with the second elephant showing weak links between crop availability and visitation, highlighting the challenges in reliably predicting human–wildlife interactions. The most popular local perceptions of the drivers of elephant visitation were the presence of crops (53% of responses) and logging (39%). The most popular proposed interventions were letting the government find a solution (32%), killing problem elephants (30%) and providing compensation for lost crops (22%). We discuss the potential feasibility and efficacy of the proposed solutions in the context of human–elephant interactions. Future research efforts should focus on collaring elephants in zones with high potential for negative human–elephant interaction and expanding perception surveys to villages with contrasting ecological contexts (e.g. with and without logging in their surrounding forests), as these could influence local perceptions of conflicts and conservation initiatives.

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.676

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.272 · 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