MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Analysis and Policy Determination of Resource Allocation in National Reserve

2023· article· en· W4391095334 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zimu You, Yanzhen Guo, Ziqi Gong, Yiming Qin, Shudan Zheng

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland Management and Livestock Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaasaiWildlifeBalance (ability)TourismNatural resource economicsNatural resourceTanzaniaBusinessNature reserveAgriculturePopulationWildlife conservationGame reserveQuarter (Canadian coin)BiodiversityEnvironmental resource managementGeographyEconomicsEnvironmental planningEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, Maasai Mara has paid more and more attention to the protection and utilization of wild animals and other resources. However, there is still a large room for improvement in the utilization of natural resources in Maasai Mara. Therefore, it is necessary to develop alternative specific policies and management strategies to achieve a balance between human interests and natural interests and reduce conflicts between humans and wildlife. This paper aims to build a model to introduce specific policies and management strategies to help better balance the relationship between human and ecology. The results of the model established indicate that population density, tourism GDP, and agricultural GDP are the three factors that have a significant impact on the evaluation of policy effectiveness while increase in the number of elephants and carnivores significantly increases the number of negative human-animal interactions.. Additionally, the establishment of the reserve has a notable effect on biodiversity conservation. Under the guidance of the best policy, in 2027, the GDP of the tourism industry in the Masai Mara National Reserve will reach 7.6606 billion US dollars in the first quarter.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRangeland Management and Livestock Ecology→French-language works237,207→