Review of the global research on Hyaenidae and implications for conservation and management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite the ecological importance of the four extant species of Hyaenidae, and the threats they face globally, there has been no review of the nearly 100 years of published research on hyaenas, nor has there been a synthesis of management‐related literature regarding these species. We reviewed 907 studies on Hyaenidae, summarized broad temporal, geographic and topical trends, and evaluated findings from management‐related research to determine ways forward for hyaena conservation management. Since the first known study in 1939, most have focused on spotted hyaena ( Crocuta crocuta ; 75% of all studies), yet overall publications for Hyaenidae have increased by 372% in recent decades. Only 44 of the 67 hyaena range states were represented across publications, with nearly half of all studies conducted in Kenya (18%), South Africa (16%) and Tanzania (13%). Twenty‐eight countries had fewer than five studies. Ecology and diet were the most‐studied topic areas. The least‐studied topics were disease and physiology. Studies on human–hyaena interactions were highly variable in topic, with infrastructure impacts and Hyaenidae benefits to people covered the least. All species were reported to have consumed anthropogenic diet items. Mortality data were included within 11% of publications, with 79% of recorded hyaena mortality constituting anthropogenic causes, although there were few targeted studies on the subject. Lastly, 12% of publications involved community engagement in their methods. There is a significant bias among species, topics and range states across Hyaenidae studies, and little data explicitly related to human–hyaena coexistence. Our management‐focused synthesis suggests that research on Hyaenidae could better reflect large carnivore conservation and management inquiry by increasing studies focused on human interactions with Hyaenidae. To address research gaps and inform Hyaenidae management, we recommend increasing applied research outside of protected areas and using interdisciplinary, community‐involved methods to increase foundational knowledge on understudied hyaena species, habitats and locations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".